Response Aaup May2016

8/16/2019 Response Aaup May2016

1/11

1

The report issued by the AAUP’s Committee A overreaches and takes a result oriented path to its

conclusions. It does not dispute the key facts of Dr. Click’s misconduct and admits that this is

not a case about her academic freedom. Yet it reaches the incongruous conclusion that academic

freedom is endangered at the University of Missouri.

It claims this is because there was no faculty hearing prior to Dr. Click’s dismissal. By finding a

danger to academic freedom after acknowledging there is no evidence that academic freedom has

been denied, the report loses sight of the true purposes of a faculty hearing and treats such ahearing as an entitlement to throw a “thin chalk line” around Dr. Click regardless of her

misconduct.

This is especially disappointing because the Committee’s report does not dispute the key facts of

Dr. Click’s misconduct: that she assaulted a student and encouraged others to physically

intimidate him; excluded people from a public space where they had a right to be present; and

interfered with freedom of the press at the university that is home to the world’s oldest

journalism school. The Board of Curators has emphasized that it does not intend to set a

precedent through its action in this case and the report does not dispute the Board’s statements

concerning its intent. Further, the report acknowledges many key points regarding Dr. Click’s

misconduct and the Board action. For example, the report itself:

Purposely and expressly does not “assert that [Dr. Click’s] actions should have been

protected under principles of academic freedom.” Report at 1.

Acknowledges that “the fundamental issue in this case is not denial of Professor Click’s

academic freedom.” Report at 11.

Finds that “Professor Click has not denied that she engaged in the conduct that became

the basis for the charges that led to her dismissal. Indeed, her conduct is amply

documented on video. The key facts relating to the misconduct charge are thus not in

dispute.” Report at 2.

Concludes that Dr. Click’s action toward MU student Mark Schierbecker “may wellqualify as third-degree assault under the state of Missouri’s definition.” Report at 11.

Admits that “access to [Carnahan Quadrangle], which is clearly a public space, cannot

legally be… restricted” as protestors attempted to do. Report at 4.

Acknowledges that “[c]alling for a journalist to be removed from a public space could be

deemed to violate” the AAUP’s own Statement on Professional Ethics. Report at 12.


2/11

2

Concedes that the Board of Curators, as a governing board, has “legal authority to act

independently” of a faculty hearing. Report at 14.

Even in this context, the Committee’s report claims that academic freedom is endangered

because there was not a faculty hearing on Dr. Click’s undisputed misconduct. This view offaculty hearings is inconsistent with the AAUP’s own standards. Those standards state that

faculty dismissals “should, if possible,” be considered both by a faculty committee and the

institution’s governing board. They are not absolute entitlements. Indeed, dismissal procedures

and even tenure itself – which Dr. Click did not have – are “means to certain ends,” such as

academic freedom. In finding a threat to academic freedom at the University despite stating

unequivocally that the fundamental issue in this case is not denial of Dr. Click’s academic

freedom, the report loses sight of the purpose of faculty hearings and illustrates it result-oriented

approach.

The report also takes its eye off fundamental issues of academic freedom in failing to appreciate

fully the impact of Dr. Click’s misconduct on the University’s educational environment. While

Dr. Click’s academic freedom was not at stake, the failure of existing procedures to address the

seriousness of her misconduct had raised worrisome questions about the University’s

commitment to upholding the standards that protect its educational environment. When others

failed to act, it was incumbent on the Board to act and enforce those standards. Engaging any

other process would have allowed questions to linger for such a time that the effects on the

University’s educational environment would have been caustic.

According to the report, the Board still should have asked faculty to conduct a hearing and

waited longer for action. It essentially argues that faculty hearings should be held unless the

faculty refuses to hear a case. But even if that were so, the Board had waited months for theseriousness of Dr. Click’s well-known conduct to be addressed. The effect on the situation

facing the Board was the same as a faculty refusal to act.

We do not suggest that faculty hearings should be cast aside whenever there is a case of faculty

misconduct that does not involve exercise of academic freedom. The Board has no pattern of

doing so and hopes to work with faculty to ensure that any future instance of faculty misconduct

is addressed through a process involving faculty review, and without need for the Board to act in

this manner again. Rather, we make the narrower point that, in the unique circumstances of this

case, the Board was obligated to act on its own to enforce the University’s standards and its

decision to do so was in the best interest of the University and does not threaten academic

freedom.

The report states, “The purpose of this report is not to defend Professor Click’s November 9

actions.” But it weaves in many inconsistent, irrelevant, and improper observations in an

apparent attempt to defend Dr. Click’s misconduct. For example, it provides an incomplete

discussion of the assault by Dr. Click, emphasizing only her touching Mr. Schierbecker’s camera

and omitting discussion of her call for force against him. Further, the report treats similar terms

in its own standards inconsistently in a manner that favors Dr. Click. It accuses the Board of

http://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenurehttp://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenurehttp://www.aaup.org/report/1940-statement-principles-academic-freedom-and-tenure


3/11

3

failing “to adhere to the admonition in the Statement on Government to ‘undertake appropriate

self-limitation.’” Report at 19. Yet when the Board finds that Dr. Click failed to meet the

University and AAUP standard that faculty must “exercise appropriate restraint,” the report

criticizes the Board for relying on “largely hortatory language.” Report at 12.

The report makes many irrelevant or inaccurate observations that cast aspersions at theUniversity or dramatize the environment in which Dr. Click’s misconduct occurred. These

tactics distract from the real issues at hand and from Dr. Click’s misconduct. The University,

like many other institutions, faces challenges related to diversity and inclusion. As the Board

acknowledged, Dr. Click was involved in emotionally charged events. But none of this excuses

Dr. Click from the responsibility to conduct herself in a professional manner befitting a faculty

member. And the Board had a responsibility to address her misconduct when others failed to do

so.

The report contains many erroneous statements about the process followed by the Board in

addressing Dr. Click’s misconduct. In fact, as the Board has previously detailed , it ordered an

objective fact investigation by experienced investigators of the Bryan Cave law firm and provided the results of the investigation, including the names of key witnesses and their

statements, to Dr. Click. The Board provided Dr. Click an opportunity to respond to the

investigation and, after the Board’s initial decision, it gave her the opportunity to appeal the

decision. The Board considered Dr. Click’s responses in both occasions, but she did not dispute

any of the essential facts. Using the same evidence that was fully disclosed to Dr. Click, the

Board took action based on her misconduct. (By contrast, the AAUP Committee did not share a

list of its witnesses or their statements with the University before issuing its report.)

No witness has contended that his or her statements to Bryan Cave were reported incorrectly.

Further, Dr. Click did not assert that the Bryan Cave Report was not objective or that it was

incorrect as to any of the key facts. Her only comments to the report were to add, in her words,“context” to the events leading up to her confrontation on Carnahan Quadrangle and to suggest

some minor corrections. The Board was willing to accept all of her comments and corrections

for purposes of reaching a decision.

More fundamentally, the AAUP Committee report’s attacks on the Bryan Cave investigation and

report are undermined by the rest of the Committee report’s content. The Committee’s report

acknowledges that “[t]he key facts relating to the misconduct charge are… not in dispute.” It

does not identify any substantive inaccuracy in the Bryan Cave Report. Nor does it identify any

particular rebuttal that Dr. Click might have made if a different process had been followed.

The report repeatedly asserts that the Board did not follow University regulations in dismissingDr. Click without a hearing before a faculty body. That is inconsistent with the report’s

acknowledgement that the Board had “legal authority to act independently.” Moreover, it is

simply wrong. As we explained to the Committee previously, the Board retains authority to

terminate a faculty appointment. The Committee’s report fails even to discuss the relevant

University rules we called to the Committee’s attention expressly permitting the Board to act in

this type of situation.

https://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/022516_statementhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/022516_statementhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/022516_statementhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_board_letter.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_board_letter.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_board_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/030416_click_appeal.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/030416_click_appeal.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/030416_click_appeal.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031516_click_letter_from_curators.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031516_click_letter_from_curators.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031516_click_letter_from_curators.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/cave_report.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/cave_report.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/cave_report.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_response.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_response.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_response.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_response.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/cave_report.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031516_click_letter_from_curators.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/030416_click_appeal.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_board_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/022516_statement


4/11

4

The report tries to imply that the Board had improper motives in dismissing Dr. Click. But its

efforts are plagued by inconsistency and speculation. It acknowledges that “[t]he fundamental

issue in this case is not denial of Professor Click’s academic freedom.” Report at 11. It also

admits that “there is no definitive evidence to suggest that the board of curators did not act upon

its stated motives.” Report at 19. And that “we have seen no evidence that directly refutes the

board’s contention that its actions were not determined by Professor Click’s views orassociations.” Report at 13. Yet it speculates that “there is reason to suspect that concerns other

than Professor Click’s actions were the real cause of her dismissal.” Moreover the report relies

on this suspicion as part of the basis for its conclusion that academic freedom is endangered.

The report emphasizes calls from Missouri legislators for termination of Dr. Click and relies on

them as a key component of its conclusion that academic freedom is endangered at the

University. But that conclusion is inconsistent with the report’s acknowledgement this case is

not about denial of Dr. Click’s academic freedom. The report also addresses other comments

and actions by legislators having nothing to do with Dr. Click. It speculates that these signal

threats to academic freedom, even though it does not point to any evidence that academic

freedom actually has been impaired.

We recognize there can be reasonable debate about whether the Board should have tried to

prompt a faculty hearing before it dismissed Dr. Click and we encouraged a thoughtful

discussion about academic freedom. But to find that academic freedom is in danger at the

University of Missouri based on this singularly challenging case of misconduct requires an

overreach. And that is what the Committee’s report does. We also recognize that faculty

hearings can guard against dismissals that target a faculty member’s academic freedom. As the

Committee’s report admits, however, that was not this case. Faculty hearings should not be a

means to ignore or blindly defend faculty misconduct. But that too is what the Committee’s

report does.

https://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdf


5/11

5

Specific Examples of Flaws in the AAUP Committee’s Report

The Report’s Defense of Dr. Click’s Misconduct

The Committee’s report states, “The purpose of this report is not to defend Professor Click’s

November 9 actions.” But the report weaves in many inconsistent, irrelevant, and improper

observations in an attempt to defend Dr. Click’s misconduct.

The report emphasizes an incomplete description of the assault by Dr. Click, referring

only to her touching Mr. Schierbecker’s camera. Report at 11. The warrant information,

which is a part of the criminal information filed against Dr. Click states that she

“assaulted MS by grabbing at his camera with her hand and attempting to knock it from

his grasp. Click also assaulted M.S. by calling out and asking for other people in the area

at the time to forcefully remove him from the quad, after he refused to obey her orders to

leave.” Exhibit 26 to Bryan Cave Report. Likewise, the Board’s decision concerning Dr.

Click addressed in detail her call for force against Mr. Schierbecker.

The report asserts that others engaged in similar assaults on November 9 without being

charged. Report at 12. But it points to nobody who called for force in the way Dr. Click

did.

The report treats similar terms in its own standards inconsistently in a manner that favors

Dr. Click. It accuses the Board of failing “to adhere to the admonition in the Statement

on Government to “undertake appropriate self-limitation.” Report at 19. Yet the report

criticizes the Board’s finding that Dr. Click failed to meet the University and AAUP

standard that faculty must “exercise appropriate restraint” as relying on “largely hortatory

language.” Report at 12.

The report makes a point of noting that Mr. Schierbecker “had limited prior journalistic

experience and no formal assignment on November 9. While he had previously submitted

articles to the Maneater , a student publication, and had taken photos for the publication

on an ad hoc basis until August 2015, his articles were never published.” Report at 4.

This is an improper attempt to diminish Mr. Schierbecker. Emphasizing his limited

journalistic background is irrelevant and inconsistent with the report’s acknowledgement

that Carnahan Quadrangle is a public place and access to it legally could not be restricted.

The report states, “Mr. Schierbecker later posted a longer version of his video, which for

many viewers shows Professor Click’s actions in a more favorable light.” Report at 5.

This is inconsistent with the evidence acknowledged in the report, which indisputably

shows Dr. Click calling for force against Mr. Schierbecker.

The report refers to Dr. Click’s “attempt” to exclude Mr. Tai and Mr. Schierbecker.

Report at 1. This is inconsistent with the evidence, which shows that through her conductand that of others, both Mr. Tai and Mr. Schierbecker were, in fact, improperly excluded

from public areas of Carnahan Quadrangle.

Likewise, the report refers to Dr. Click’s “alleged misconduct.” Report at 1, 13. This is

inconsistent with the report’s acknowledgment that Dr. Click’s conduct met the definition

of assault and violated AAUP standards. Even if the Committee disagrees with whether

https://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/exhibits1-31.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/exhibits1-31.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/exhibits1-31.pdf


6/11

6

Dr. Click should have been dismissed, the evidence acknowledged in the report leaves no

room to dispute that she engaged in misconduct.

The report describes Dr. Click’s conduct at the October 10 Homecoming Parade only

from her perspective and does not describe her conduct in resisting the police officers’

direct and proper commands, and in obstructing the officers’ efforts at moving the student

protesters from the street onto the sidewalk area. Report at 8.

The Report’s Erroneous Observations on the Board’s Investigation and Process

The Committee’s report contains many erroneous statements about the process followed by the

Board in addressing Dr. Click’s misconduct. In fact, as the Board has previously detailed , the

Board ordered an objective fact investigation by experienced investigators and provided the

results of the investigation, including the names of key witnesses and their statements, to Dr.

Click. The Board provided Dr. Click an opportunity to respond to the investigation and, after the

Board’s initial decision, it gave her the opportunity to appeal the decision. The Board considered

Dr. Click’s responses in both occasions, but she did not dispute any of the essential facts. Usingthe same evidence that was fully disclosed to Dr. Click, the Board took action based on her

misconduct.

Fundamentally, the Committee report’s attacks on the Bryan Cave investigation and

report are undermined by the rest of the Committee report’s content. The Committee’s

report acknowledges that “[t]he key facts relating to the misconduct charge are… not in

dispute.” Report at 2. It does not identify any substantive inaccuracy in the Bryan Cave

Report. Nor does the report identify any particular rebuttal that Dr. Click might have

made if a different process had been followed. Thus the Committee fails to explain how

its criticisms of the Bryan Cave Report are relevant or significant in any substantive way.

The Committee’s report questions the fairness and reliability of the Bryan Cave Report.

But neither Dr. Click nor her counsel ever voiced a concern that the Bryan Cave Report

was not objective. Her only comments to the report were to add, in her words, “context”

to the events leading up to her confrontation on Carnahan Quadrangle and to suggest

some minor corrections. The Board was willing to accept all of her comments and

corrections for purposes of reaching a decision.

The draft notes that Bryan Cave attorneys met twice with Professor Click. Report at 7.

This does not accurately convey the extent of the investigation, which entailed interviews

of many more witnesses and review of reports and records, as detailed in the Bryan Cave

Report.

The report asserts “it is difficult to understand how Professor Click could have had ‘anopportunity to rebut’” witness testimony. Report at 15. Dr. Click and her attorney,

having provided Bryan Cave with the students and faculty members she believed

pertinent to the investigation, could have conducted their own interviews of those

individuals and submitted reports of those interviews to the Board if they would have

differed from the Bryan Cave interview memos. Likewise, they also could have

identified any other witnesses and provided their information to the Board.

https://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/022516_statementhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/022516_statementhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/022516_statementhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_board_letter.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_board_letter.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_board_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/030416_click_appeal.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/030416_click_appeal.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/030416_click_appeal.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031516_click_letter_from_curators.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031516_click_letter_from_curators.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031516_click_letter_from_curators.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/cave_report.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/cave_report.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/cave_report.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_response.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_response.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_response.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_response.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/cave_report.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031516_click_letter_from_curators.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/030416_click_appeal.pdfhttps://uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/curator/click_board_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/022516_statement


7/11

7

The report states that “the witness statements appended to the report are not depositions

or transcripts of interviews. Instead, they are primarily secondhand accounts by the

interrogators of what they claim the witnesses said .” Report at 15. This is flawed on

many levels.

o The Committee identifies no basis for these criticisms or any expertise to make

them. The Bryan Cave attorneys who led the investigation have extensiveexperience as investigators. Indeed, the lead attorney has more than 20 years of

experience as a federal prosecutor, including service the chief civil rights

prosecutor in U.S. Attorney’s Offices in St. Louis and East St. Louis, where he

was charged with investigating and prosecuting all forms of civil rights violations,

including hate crimes against minority members of the community and police

excessive use of force matters. He also served as the chief prosecutor for public

corruption investigations and prosecutions in those two Offices.

o In fact, recording these types of interviews to produce transcripts is not standard

procedure in these types of investigations. The experienced Bryan Cave attorneys

followed typical practices for such investigations. In their experienced judgment,any attempt to record these interviews would very likely have had a chilling effect

on the actual interview process, and the ability of the Bryan Cave attorneys to

obtain candid factual information.

o Statements of several key witnesses, including Mr. Tai, Mr. Schierbecker, and

MU faculty members, were in fact signed and adopted by the witnesses. Dr.

Click was given an opportunity to review and comment on the memoranda of her

interviews.

o Dr. Click did not assert that the Bryan Cave Report was incorrect as to any of the

key facts.

o

Since the Bryan Cave Report and the interview memos were released publicly, nowitness has come forward to contend that his or her statements to Bryan Cave

were reported incorrectly.

The report asserts “we have seen no evidence that the outside counsel made any effort to

identify and interview any neutral bystanders or others unknown to either Professor Click

or the curators who might have come forward with useful information. In just two days

we were able to identify and interview a student who was standing very close to the

confrontations between Professor Click and the student journalists, but she informed us

that not only had she not been contacted by the curators’ investigators but she had not

even heard that such an investigation was taking place.” Report at 15. This criticism is

misplaced in several respects.

o

The report does not suggest that this student or any other provided any

information that would have led to any dispute about key facts. Nor does it allege

any particular individual with important knowledge was not interviewed.

o A great many people were on Carnahan Quadrangle on November 9 in the

vicinity of Dr. Click’s confrontations with Mr. Tai and Mr. Schierbecker. But

that does not mean it was necessary or worthwhile to pursue more interviews than

Bryan Cave conducted. This criticism is inconsistent with the committee’s


8/11

8

fundamental acknowledgment that “Professor Click has not denied that she

engaged in the conduct that became the basis for the charges that led to her

dismissal. Indeed, her conduct is amply documented on video. The key facts

relating to the misconduct charge are thus not in dispute.” Report at 2.

The report asserts, “Indeed, as far as we can tell, the investigation conducted by the

Bryan Cave firm took place almost entirely outside the knowledge of the broaderuniversity community.” Report at 15. This criticism overlooks that the Board made a

public announcement of its investigation.

The Report’s Erroneous Observations on the Board’s Action and Motivation

The report tries to imply that the Board had improper motives in dismissing Dr. Click. But its

efforts are plagued by inconsistency and speculation. The report also draws an unjustified and

unsupported connection between expressions of dissatisfaction from outside the University and a

threat to academic freedom.

The report acknowledges that “[t]he fundamental issue in this case is not denial of

Professor Click’s academic freedom.” Report at 11. It also admits that “there is no

definitive evidence to suggest that the board of curators did not act upon its stated

motives.” Report at 19. And that “we have seen no evidence that directly refutes the

board’s contention that its actions were not determined by Professor Click’s views or

associations.” Report at 13. Yet it speculates that “there is reason to suspect that

concerns other than Professor Click’s actions were the real cause of her dismissal.”

Moreover the report relies on this suspicion as part of the basis for its conclusion that

academic freedom is endangered.

The report emphasizes calls from Missouri legislators for termination of Dr. Click andrelies on them as a key component of its conclusion that academic freedom is endangered

at the University. Reaching that conclusion is inconsistent with the report’s

acknowledgement this case is not about denial of Dr. Click’s academic freedom. Further,

the University serves the public and the state. The people and their elected

representatives had every right to express dissatisfaction about Dr. Click’s misconduct

and the University’s failure to address it.

The report addresses other comments and actions by legislators having nothing to do with

Dr. Click. It speculates that these signal threats to academic freedom, even though it does

not point to any evidence that academic freedom actually has been impaired.

The report asserts that the Board did not follow University regulations in dismissing Dr.Click without a hearing before a faculty body.

o That is inconsistent with the report’s acknowledgement that the Board had “legal

authority to act independently.” Report at 14.

o As we explained to the Committee previously, the procedures entailing a faculty

hearing are not the only means for the Board to act on termination of an appointment.

Instead, the Board retains authority to act to terminate a faculty appointment apart

from those procedures. The Committee’s report fails even to discuss the relevant

https://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/012716_statementhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/012716_statementhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/news/media_archives/012716_statement


9/11

9

University rules we called to the Committee’s attention expressly permitting the

Board to act in this type of situation. University of Missouri Collected Rules and

Regulations Sections 10.030.A.9, 20.030.B, and 320.020.B.

The report alleges, “The most reasonable explanation — not only for refusing to follow the

institution’s own regulations but also for declining the opportunity to press charges under

those regulations — is that the curators feared the process would fail to produce a desiredresult.” Report at 13. This is wrong. Not only is it unsupported speculation, it is flawed

in other respects as well.

o As explained above, the report is inconsistent and wrong in alleging that the

Board failed to follow University rules.

o Moreover, the reports allegation is inconsistent with its own admission that “there

is no definitive evidence to suggest that the board of curators did not act upon its

stated motives.” Report at 19.

o The report’s allegation does not make sense. The Board would have retained

authority to act even if a hearing before a faculty body had occurred. If the Board

had pre-judged the matter as the committee alleges, it had no reason to worrywhether a faculty hearing would “produce a desired result” as the Committee

alleges because it still could have acted to dismiss Dr. Click.

o On the contrary, the Board had already provided the Committee with the “most

reasonable explanation” for its action: “It was only after there had been a failure

of any other process to address the seriousness of Dr. Click’s conduct that the

matter rose to a level where the University’s commitment to its educational

standards was in serious question and the Board felt compelled to act on its own.

At that point, engaging any other process would have allowed those questions to

linger for such a time that in the Board’s view the effects on the University’s

educational environment would have been caustic.” Other Irrelevant and Inaccurate Observations

The report makes many irrelevant or inaccurate observations that cast aspersions at the

University or dramatize the environment in which Dr. Click’s misconduct occurred. These

tactics distract from the real issues at hand and from Dr. Click’s misconduct. Fundamentally,

they miss the key points. Regardless of whether the University faces challenges related to

diversity and inclusion, and regardless of whether Dr. Click was involved in emotionally charged

events, she had a responsibility to conduct herself in a professional manner befitting a faculty

member. And the Board had a responsibility to address her misconduct when others failed to do

so. Indeed, the Board acknowledged in its decision that Dr. Click acted in a tense environment.

It simply found that this did not excuse her actions.

The report borrows a single op-ed piece’s criticism of decisions related to the University of

Missouri Press and graduate student tuition waivers and health insurance. Report at 3. These

are irrelevant not only because they cannot excuse Dr. Click’s misconduct, but also because

the decision-makers in those matters had nothing to do with the decision to dismiss Dr. Click.

https://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/administration/ch10/10.030_board_bylawshttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/administration/ch10/10.030_board_bylawshttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/administration/ch10/10.030_board_bylawshttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/administration/ch20/20.030_executive_philosophyhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/administration/ch20/20.030_executive_philosophyhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/administration/ch20/20.030_executive_philosophyhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/personnel/ch320/320.020_presidents_authorityhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/personnel/ch320/320.020_presidents_authorityhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/personnel/ch320/320.020_presidents_authorityhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/media/curator/031716_aaup_letter.pdfhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/personnel/ch320/320.020_presidents_authorityhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/administration/ch20/20.030_executive_philosophyhttps://www.umsystem.edu/ums/rules/collected_rules/administration/ch10/10.030_board_bylaws


10/11

10

Further, it is inappropr iate to describe these matters through the lens of one individual’s

opinion and rhetorical perspective, by which the report borrows inflammatory wording.

The report repeatedly cites other opinions or assertions of individual observers, uncritically

adopting them as premises for its analysis. In doing so, the report loses objectivity.

The report is implicitly critical of the University’s efforts to provide security at Carnahan

Quadrangle. It seems to imply that providing security should have entailed deployment ofuniformed officers in the midst of protesters and members of the public on Carnahan

Quadrangle, or otherwise actively tried to “organize or supervise” those present. Report at 4.

This opinion is both uninformed and unsupported. The University’s police department and

other staff were successful in providing security with respect to events on Carnahan

Quadrangle. The events remained peaceful and nobody was harmed, notwithstanding Dr.

Click’s call for force against Mr. Schierbecker. The University’s police officials made a wise

tactical judgment to have officers nearby and ready to respond but not in the midst of

protesters, where their presence or other efforts to “organize or supervise” protestors might

have enhanced tensions. Further, when a threat of violence was made on Yik Yak following

protests, the University’s police responded immediately and quickly made an arrest. The report notes that former President Wolfe had no prior experience in higher education and

refers to his appointment as part of a “chain of events”. Report at 2. But President Wolfe

was not involved in the decision to dismiss Dr. Click and the report does not show how his

appointment or prior experience had any bearing on that matter. If the point is to imply that

campus unrest would not have occurred under a different president, that is wholly speculative

and does nothing to excuse Dr. Click’s misconduct in any event.

The report states, “Three seats on the board are currently vacant, with resignations of two

African American members of the board occurring during the events recounted in this

report.” Report at 2. The reference to resignations by African-American members gives a

false impression that their resignations were related to race or campus unrest. The report states, “It might also be noted that the absence from the board of one-third of its

members, including two African American members who resigned within days of each other

and within days of the curators’ decision to investigate Professor Click, raises troubling

questions about the board’s functioning in this matter, although both of those who resigned

claimed publicly to be doing so for personal reasons unrelated to events at MU.” Report at

16, n. 14. The report identifies no basis whatsoever to question the truthfulness of public

statements by the two resigning Board members.

The report notes, “The institution first began to admit African American students in 1950,

and, in 2014, 8.2 percent of the institution’s student body was African American.” Report at

1. The University understands its history and recognizes that it faces challenges related todiversity and inclusion. In this it is not unique and it is moving forthrightly to address those

challenges. But if these items are worthy of mention as contextual information, then in

fairness the report should mention that the University has engaged in many efforts of the last

two decades to achieve greater diversity in its student body and that the student body’s

proportion of African American students has grown significantly in that time.

The report addresses protests in Ferguson. Report at 3. This is irrelevant and appears to be

an attempt to associate the University with controversial events in Ferguson, in which the


11/11

11

University played no role. If events in Ferguson are to be discussed, fairness demands that

the report discuss how the University’s reactions to protests in the fall of 2015 contrasted

dramatically with reactions to protests in Ferguson and how the protests on campus remained

peaceful, notwithstanding Dr. Click’s call for force against Mr. Schierbecker.

The report discusses changes in recommendations on Dr. Click’s tenure application that

occurred after her misconduct. It states, “It is impossible to determine to what degree thesechanges of position were products of sincere and independent reconsideration in light of

subsequent events and to what degree they were a consequence of some sort of external

pressure.” Report at 15. The report identifies no evidence of external pressure, so this is

speculation. These changes in recommendation had no bearing on Dr. Click’s dismissal and

thus are irrelevant.

In footnote 9, the report states, “It is worth noting that when the board posted a copy of this

letter on its website, it neglected to redact from the letter Professor Click's home address,

which, given the threats she had received and was still receiving, needlessly endangered her,

her husband, who is also a professor at MU, and their small children.”

o

Despite information from the University, the report fails to note that Dr. Click’s homeaddress was redacted from the first letter that was posted to the University’s website.

The inclusion of the address in the subsequent letter posted to the website was an

oversight and the address was redacted promptly after the matter was brought to the

University’s attention by Dr. Click’s attorney.

o The report offers no support for the statement that Dr. Click or her family were

endangered and no evidence that they came to harm as a result of the posting of the

letter. Further, this observation implies that the posting presented a unique problem

for Dr. Click and her family, even though her address was well known and publicly

available by other means.

Response Aaup May2016

Documents

Transcript of Response Aaup May2016