Doug Giebel, a former adjunct faculty member at Montana State University, writes to share his story and to invite readers with advice or similar experiences to contact him. He writes:

I'm a former adjunct professor seeking input regarding my current adventure as a victim of false harassment allegations AND hoping to contact others who have been falsely accused of harassment.

For the past four years I was employed as an adjunct professor at Montana State University, Great Falls: College of Technology. By all accounts my work was successful, and I was officially listed to teach a summer session class and fall semester 2007 classes. My name appears as an adjunct faculty member in the 2007-08 college catalog.

In an earlier dispute, I was invited to argue (successfully) before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and that dispute generated a modest amount of national attention. See Giebel v. Sylvester, 244 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2001)

Spring semester 2007, I assisted one of my students: a very bright, impoverished 27-year-old single mother with a lifetime history of being neglected and abused. For 7 or 8 years she was heavily involved in the drug scene, using, cooking and selling "meth." The student is on court probation for a variety of drug-related felonies, but she has determined to turn her life around.

The student expressed a desire to visit New York City for a week, and so friends and I raised the funds so I could take her on the trip. I had lived in Manhattan for many years and had taken others (including students or former students) for such educational trips. The student agreed to have a thorough medical evaluation in NYC if it could be arranged. The trip was scheduled for late May 2007.

Before the student could make the trip, however, she needed permission and I needed assurance from the student's probation officer. The student assured me she would make the trip, convinced the probation officer she would go, and the officer wrote to tell me I should make arrangements, buy the plane tickets, etc. I did so.

**

My spring semester contract had expired, my summer contract had not yet begun. After the semester ended, however, the student stated she could not make the trip at the appointed time. When I tried to encourage the student to take the trip and to learn why she had decided "the time is not good right now," I was met with silence.

The probation officer told me the student was not going on the trip and that I should have no further contact with her. I told the officer I would comply with the request, but that I was concerned about the loss of the funds we had raised.

A few days later, mistakenly fearing I might sue the student and/or the officer to recover the money, the probation officer contacted campus administrators, made false but alarming statements about me. Then the student filed a complaint against me for "sexual harassment." (I was informed by an EEOC representative that the complaint would not pass muster with the EEOC.)

Shortly after the student filed her complaint, my scheduled summer and fall classes were cancelled. At the time, however, I was UNAWARE of the officer's statements, the student's complaint, the class cancellations (and thus my termination).

**

Eventually I was contacted by an administrator and asked to attend a meeting on campus. I was repeatedly assured the meeting was simply over "a student matter" and to my inquiries I was twice told that I did not need to "bring anything" with me to the meeting. Assuming I was still in good standing, I drove the 80 miles to the campus for the meeting. When I arrived I was ambushed by three top administrators and told I would not be rehired in the future.

I asked why, and after some strange, deceptive maneuvers aimed at tricking me, I was told of the student's complaint, although the terms "sexual harassment" and "hostile environment" were not mentioned.

**

The administrators decided that the student had missed a few class meetings because she could not tolerate me. ALL evidence, however, proves she was having boyfriend problems or health/emotional related problems that had nothing to do with me.

Because I had allegedly created a "hostile environment" (there was no sex or romance alleged by the student), investigators decided the student had supposedly missed out on a valuable education benefit when she chose to miss class. The student, however, passed the class with an A minus after very successfully completing her final assignment.

Dissatisfied, the Dean ruled that there is more to a class than the grade one receives, and the alleged "hostile environment" meant that the student might want to RE-TAKE THE CLASS because of what the administration claimed she had missed! And she should not have to retake the class from me. Therefore, I had to go.

**
INTERESTING QUESTION:

Are there others whose contracts have ended who have been summoned through deception into entering into an administrative investigation process?

This aspect seems to me rather unusual.

**
DUE PROCESS VIOLATIONS

Has an accused individual ANY rights when accused of harassment?

Recently William Glaberson reported in the New York Times that a Guantanamo detainee must be denied knowing the names of witnesses against him. In my case, I have been denied knowing the names of witnesses listed by the complaining student and have also been denied the right to see the original complaint as filed by the "transcripted" copy of the complaint with the names of witnesses (and who knows what else) redacted. This may be the first case of an Unlawful Enemy Professor.

The college has no published policies/rules governing the process for conducting sexual harassment investigations. This is the FIRST time these administrators have held such an investigation, and they worked overtime to make sure I was found guilty of something.

Clearly the administration set out to advocate FOR THE STUDENT rather than to conduct a reasonably-impartial investigation, an approach that seems to be standard in many institutions.

I WAS DENIED

An unbiased tribunal.

Sufficient, accurate notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.

The right to see the original complaint or a copy of it. (Only a revised/redacted version was made available.)

The right to know opposing evidence.

The right to face and question the accuser.

The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

Opportunity to be represented by counsel at the initial meeting /interrogation.

The right to be present when adverse evidence is presented to the fact-finder.

The right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

FIRST AMENDMENT

The administration seeks to control/censor the private speech of employees/professors in consensual off-campus friendship communications with adult students. The administration argument is that professors and students may not have "friendship" relationships. Once the student/professor relationship exists it is somehow permanent and exclusive.

The administration's position appears to violate the right to freedom of association.

WRONGFUL DISCHARGE

I was "terminated" because the student filed her complaint (at the beginning of the investigation), although I was never given notice of the termination. I learned of it by accident.

I had four years of very successful employment at the college, so my employment was beyond any "probationary" stage required by Montana's unique Wrongful Discharge law.

Furthermore, I was lied to about the reason for the termination since administrators do not want to link my loss of employment to the student's complaint.

In and e-mail, I was told the summer class was cancelled because 10 days before the start of class only 5 students were enrolled, and policy required a minimum of 7 students. When I challenged this excuse, I was told there IS NO "7 student" policy, and many classes go forward with fewer than 7 students.

I was not given any adequate reason for the fall semester class terminations.

**
The administration alleges that the student's witnesses did not need to be interviewed. However, the (anonymous) witnesses WERE interviewed, and they declined to become involved.

It now appears the student and her best friend (also a single-mother and recovering addict) planned this "scam" quite early on in our relationship. It seems the student also manipulated the probation officer into making the initial contact with the administration, so if the thing backfired the student could blame the officer.

**
I am now in the later stages of the university system's administrative appeals process. I have repeatedly requested a meeting with administrators to resolve the dispute informally. So far my requests have been denied. The system's chief legal counsel told me that they had never held such a meeting, noting my wish that the proceedings be recorded for accuracy.

**
I COULD REALLY USE SOME ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT.

My interest is in having the university system set for SPECIFIC POLICIES stating both what rights are guaranteed to the accused and the procedures to be employed when conducting an official sexual harassment investigation.

Of course it has been well documented that many campus policies and such terms as "hostile environment" and "uncomfortable" related to sexual harassment allegations are far too vague.

**
There's much more to this epic, and I will be happy to discuss the details with any who find the story of interest.

Comments are open.