I received a comment from a certifiable dunderhead calling him/herself "Another Concerned Citizen." If this makes anyone wonder how a dunderhead becomes certified as such, the answer is that while there are many ways, one is to offer commentary on something you clearly have not read. That's just a dunderheaded thing to do and therefore a quick path to earning one's dunderhead bona fides. Here's what "Another Concerned Citizen" had to say in response to my criticism of Biff, his credentials, etc.:
"I don't know the guy. But if you're curious about why there wasn't a better candidate this post should provide a clue. It's easy to sit back and mock at the work that's being done without fully understanding what a Univeristy [sic] Presidents job actually entails."
Leaving the dunderheaded ambiguities of this statement aside, it seems obviously to have been intended as a barb of some sort, a little jab with the point of dunderhead's rhetorical stick, calling me to account for just not seeing the big picture. In that respect, I can only suggest that our dunderhead, precisely because she/he is so well-intentioned, sharpen the stick, or perhaps head for the (metaphorical) woods in search of a new one. More importantly, of course, she/he should actually read what is written in this blog before writing a single additional word of commentary. But having said that, I feel compelled to confess that I appreciate the offered comment (in all of its dunderheadedness) very much, because it provides an excellent introduction to a list of Biff's misdeeds. After all, if I've been "mocking at" anything it is at these misdeeds. And since, further, our dunderhead has implied that the misdeeds are, so to speak, all in a day's work for a university president, we can use the list to see clearly just what I have failed to "fully understand" in relation to a university president's job. So here we go. I remind the reader that what follows is all in the category of alleged and awaits the ultimate validation of a judge and jury.
Biff Williams, self-proclaimed champion of 'family values', is alleged to have done the following:
1. Fired Varlo on the basis of a reported classroom "assault" of a student without a pre-termination hearing of any sort and without Williams or any other administrator asking Varlo for his point of view of the incident. It is likely that at the time Williams took the decision, Bishop Don Reid had watched the surveillance video of the alleged incident, discovered that it did not support Cassidy Sorensen's account, and had informed Williams of such. (Reid later testified in St. George City Court, under oath and with a smirk on his face and his LDS temple recommend hot in his pocket, that there was no video of the incident because there never had been a surveillance camera in that particular classroom).
2. Because it was against policy for the President to initiate the termination, Williams instructed Bill Christensen to deliver the news to Varlo and to make it look like it was Christensen's decision.
2.a. - it is worth noting in this regard that Christensen and Jeff Jarvis soon realized the firing Varlo without a pre-termination hearing was also a violation of policy; therefore they conspired to state that Varlo had been suspended rather than fired. The fact remains that he was fired without anything resembling a hearing.
3. Williams hired the supposed victim of assault, Cassidy Sorensen, to work for him in his office, befriended her and promised her such things as his current prayers on her behalf and future letters of recommendation, all the while knowing he was to be the final judge with respect to Varlo's termination (needless to say, he saw the prospective Faculty Review Board (FRB) hearing as merely pro forma, as he already had fired Varlo clandestinely).
4. After the FRB had heard the case and voted unanimously for Varlo's reinstatement, Williams instructed Human Resource Director Will Craver to keep the findings of the hearing confidential, since he did not want word to get out that no evidence had been presented to support Varlo's termination.
5. Williams specifically instructed Craver not to provide Varlo with a copy of the FRB findings.
6. Since he knew that no evidence had been presented to justify terminating Varlo, in a blatantly egregious violation not just of policy but of fundamental fairness, Williams contacted Mark Houser requesting access to Houser's secret file of supposed complaints about Varlo.
7. Williams then used the false claims contained in Houser's secret file to justify Varlo's termination, all the while knowing that Varlo had never been given an opportunity not only to refute the false claims, but even to know of their existence.
8. Williams went against the FRB's recommendation to reinstate Varlo and fired him anyway without providing a reason. Later, of course, he would tell the press that "it had been going on for a long time" and other such statements betraying the fact that he had based his decision on (false) information obtained from Mark Houser.
9. After Varlo's termination was confirmed, Varlo wrote to Will Craver asking whether Williams had relied on information not presented to the FRB. Williams instructed Craver to have no further contact with Varlo.
10. After word got out that the FRB had recommended Varlo's reinstatement and as pressure mounted on Williams to account for himself, he met with Paul Morris and the two conspired on a plan to make Williams's actions seemed justified. First, they would leak false information to try to smear Varlo's reputation. Second, although they knew no crime had occurred, they would try to get a criminal charge filed based on the alleged classroom incident.
11. Williams instructed an apparently somewhat (at first) reluctant Bishop Reid to a file a criminal complaint with the prosecutor's office.
12. Williams then conspired with Reid to try to get the charge filed for felony child abuse, because this would destroy Varlo's reputation and be financially devastating to defend himself against. (Keep in mind, in this regard, that both Williams and Reid were fully aware that no crime had been committed, that there was no probable cause for a charge of any sort to be filed).
13. In order to feed the rumor mill, as he and Morris had planned, Williams then told Nate Staehli, Erin O'Brien, and Spencer Ricks, among others, that Varlo was being investigated for having an affair with a student, a fact he knew not to be true.
14. Williams lied in public forum when asked about his handling of the situation with Varlo, falsely claiming in response to a question, that he had met with Varlo "three times" prior to firing him. Of course he had never met with him, and neither had any other administrator, prior to his termination.
15. Williams falsely told numerous parties that he had relied only on evidence presented to the FRB in making his determination to fire Varlo.
16. Williams met with at least two reputable locals, Randy Wilkinson and Rod Savage, and persuaded them, on the basis of what can only have been false information about Varlo, to accompany him on a visit to County Attorney Brock Belnap's office, with the intention of persuading Belnap to file the child abuse charge.
15. Williams instructed the maintenance department to remove the video surveillance camera from the classroom where the alleged incident occurred and to cover up any and all indication that the camera had been there.
16. Williams also persuaded Christine Durham, Chair of DSU's Board of Trustees, to accompany him on another visit to Belnap's office in a continued effort to persuade Belnap to file the child abuse charge.
17. Once the criminal proceeding was under way, Williams conspired with other DSU personnel to attempt to avoid the requirements of a court issued subpoena and not turn over emails related to Varlo's termination. He did so, of course, because he knew the emails would reveal the very misdeeds described above.
18. In response to Varlo's trial, Williams wrote a press release filled with false statements in a last-ditch attempt to publicly justify his conduct.
19. Williams, apparently in order to blackball Varlo, and on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, instructed university personnel to notify prospective employers that Varlo had been fired by DSU for assaulting a student in class and for violent behavior toward students and faculty.
I think that's a pretty good list, for now. Perhaps "Another Concerned Citizen" will want to offer some further thoughts to explain how all of this fits in within the job description, i.e., within "what a university president's job actually entails." But it's rather hard to imagine a university, any university, really wanting as its leading figure someone capable of such unethical behavior, someone who demonstrates such a lack of anything resembling moral character. In any case, if this is all just part of the "work that's being done", then I think anyone would agree that, however easy it is to do, it is very justly "mocked at."
Someone pointed out to me the rather gross inaccuracy in my statement that "NO ONE ELSE IS WRITING ABOUT IT," since it overlooks the tireless efforts of Dallas Hyland at the Southern Utah Independent to keep Varlo's story alive. I admit this mistake and in my defense can say only that my intent was to highlight the relative silence of The Spectrum in particular. But other publications have behaved similarly. St. George News, for example, though they ran a story about Varlo's civil suit, neglected to mention any of the more egregious actions alleged to have been taken by Biff and others. It gives one the sense that the editors (and I emphasize that these are editorial decisions, i.e., not necessarily the decisions of the reporters) of these publications are either complicit or afraid (which ultimately amounts to the same thing) of making their friends at DSU look as bad as they are. They're unwilling to report even what is alleged. And I simply can't understand that. There is such a thing as "watchdog journalism", and I can't imagine any serious journalist who wouldn't aspire to it. But maybe they're afraid of John Pike, or Bishop Reid, or some other local power. I don't know. It's more than curious. In that regard, it is surely true that Mr. Hyland is subject to no such fear. He has, as noted, been tireless in his efforts to shine a light on the malice, dishonesty and corruption of Biff and Co. I hope what I write here serves to complement his more voluminous efforts.
As I reflected on the last post, it occurred to me that I could be accused of being too critical of Biff Williams. Someone might say that I just have an axe to grind and that in criticizing his credentials and not, so to speak, taking the high road, I am hurting Varlo's cause more than helping it. There might be something to that sort of accusation. I certainly am guilty of having an axe to grind, and the last thing I would want to do is to hurt Varlo's case. But because I regard Biff's actions with respect to Varlo as contemptible, and because I regard Biff himself as unqualified for his position and as a dastardly liar (the evidence on both counts being, so far as I can see, conclusive), I have no regrets about anything I have written, with one exception: I regret saying the the official study of "curriculum and instruction" is not a serious endeavor. Like any academic subject, it can be a serious endeavor, especially, of course, insofar as it deals with questions related to how human beings learn. So let that stand as a retraction of any earlier statement that may not have given "curriculum and instruction" its due respect.
The argument with respect to Biff's Ph.D. stands: he went after the Ph.D. that he could obtain in the easiest possible manner, not because he is interested in any serious way in "curriculum and instruction" but because he needed the credential to further an administrative career. Take a look at his CV and his "dissertation" and you'll see what I mean. He's a careerist, and, comparatively, a 2nd-rate one, and that's generous. He had no experience as a university president when he was hired at DSU, which is odd in itself. One cannot look at his credentials and experience without wondering exactly what qualified him for the position, especially when, again, so many had much better credentials. DSU trustee Gail Smith said he stood out with his commitment to "family values." Even if he walked the walked in that regard--and as we know, he doesn't--rather than just playing to the preferences of people like Gail Smith, since when did a commitment to "family values" become the primary qualifier for the president of a university? Biff Williams really has no business being the president of DSU or any other university. If there ever was any question about that, his actions with respect to Varlo decide that question. And I'm writing about those actions because NO ONE ELSE IS WRITING ABOUT IT. As noted already, all of the local powers support Biff, including that paragon of investigative journalism "The Spectrum". Despite the fact that the allegations in Varlo's legal complaint are in the public domain, no one has written about the most serious ones. Compare what happened when Varlo was charged. The Spectrum ran his photo on the front page, with the headline "Davenport Charged", complete with a statement from the university, and an account of all that was alleged. This was a favor to Biff and DSU, courtesy of St. George City's own little "Pravda." But did The Spectrum even mention the allegations in Varlo's suit, the one's that implicate Mark Houser, Biff, Don Reid and others in fabricating a case against Varlo, lying to the public, supressing/destroying evidence, submitting false information to a court, as well as lying in court? No, not a word. And further, it looks like everyone is just giving these folks a pass, while in the meantime, Varlo's career, everything he's worked a lifetime for, has been destroyed. Not accidentally. Not as a consequence of something else. Deliberately. Biff Williams didn't just decide to fire Varlo. He went after Varlo, with the intent to ruin his career, and he seems to have done so for no other reason than that Varlo didn't go away quietly when Biff fired him. So, yes, I do have an axe to grind with Biff Williams. And I'm going to keep grinding away. For anyone who has not read the complaint, I will, when I continue, supply a little list of the actions of our great champion of family values that render him worthy of our collective scorn and contempt.
"We can serve privilege and power or we can serve justice and truth. And those of us who commit to serving justice and truth, the more we make concessions to those who serve privilege and power, the more we dilute the possibilities of justice and truth."
-- Julien Benda
I sometimes wonder the extent to which anyone who happens to have come across this blog understands some of the basic dynamics of Varlo’s situation. He’s up against not only the local powers but those of the State. We want to believe that he has some hope in federal court. But, oddly, the case is already in the hands of its third federal judge, with no real explanation of what happened to the first two judges. We could be forgiven for thinking that it’s perhaps a little fishy. We know, in any case, that the Regents have Biff’s back, which means, really, that everyone at the state level has Biff’s back. This case might as well be Varlo Davenport v. The State of Utah. In order to put a little flesh on this skeleton of an assertion, let’s take a look at Biff, his credentials, and his ascension to the presidency of DSU.
There are different kinds of people in academia. Some get into it because they love a subject, and the opportunity to spend their lives studying and teaching is more appealing than anything else. Along with their students, these are the people that universities should be all about. Ultimately, a “university” in the true sense is about the arts and sciences and providing the opportunity for a true liberal arts education. If the institution is serving other purposes, then you don’t really have a university but something else, a technical or vocational school. This idea of the university is an old one, and it is an ideal. There are plenty of places that assume university status and the “university” name without being universities in the true sense; they are vocational schools pretending to be universities. It is at these latter types of institutions that you are likely to find in abundance another type of person, the 2nd-rate careerist administrator. Careerist administrators exist at real universities as well, but they usually have serious academic credentials. 2nd-rate careerists often have degrees outside the arts and sciences and their CVs exhibit their attempt to pile up credentials that can help them advance an administrative career. Most tellingly, if they have a Ph.D., it will be something of a faux Ph.D., one obtained in the easiest possible manner, obtained not for the sake of study of a serious subject but for the sake of the credential itself. Now you might be thinking it would be astonishing if such a person could become the actual president of a university. And I would agree. And if you are thinking “do you mean to tell me this describes Biff Williams?” The sad answer is that yes, yes it does. But why does this matter?
It matters because, as I happen to know, there were several candidates for the presidency of DSU who were much, much more qualified than Biff. One individual I know of, for example, has a serious Ph.D., in a serious subject, from Harvard University and years of university experience. Biff, in contrast, has an undergraduate degree in “Lifestyle Management” (say it out loud and I swear you can almost hear the mushy sound), some sort of related Masters degree, and then a Ph.D., obtained through an online program, in “Curriculum and Instruction.” Now, I don’t mean to denigrate curriculum and instruction. It has its place in university departments of education. But, with appropriate apologies, it is not the study of any serious subject. When you find a Ph.D. of this sort, especially one obtained via an online program, that does not belong to someone teaching within an education department, it is most likely to belong to a 2nd-rate careerist administrator. And such, indeed, is our man Biff.
The question, then, is “Why Biff?” You can call me a snob, but I believe, very simply, that a university president should have real academic and intellectual credentials. Otherwise, he or she will not have a sufficient grasp of the arts and sciences and, consequently, of the meaning of the university. Rather, he or she will tend to see the university in terms of his or her own careerist ambitions. At any rate, what you have to understand is that the answer to the “Why Biff?” question has almost nothing to do with his qualifications. Many were more qualified. The answer is that he was somebody’s darling. He had the right connection, whatever it was. No one would become a university president in Utah without such a connection, without a real promoter or advocate who had the ear of the Regents, Trustees, etc.
I do not know Biff, but I can tell a lot about him from how he has handled this situation with Varlo. And what I would argue is that it’s precisely because he is a 2nd-rate careerist that it was impossible to him to admit any kind of mistake. So when it became clear that firing Varlo in the way that he did may have been a mistake and not in line with policy, he chose to try to cover it up. After all, to do otherwise might interfere with his career ambitions. This is the path he chose, again, to have Varlo charged with a crime that he himself knew Varlo was not guilty of committing. He made the decision to have the assault charge filed but has then lied repeatedly to the public about it. He’s done everything he could do to try to cover up his role in it. And this is the “president” of our “university.” I believe the community and, especially, the students need to understand who is at the helm of the institution. Earlier I said that you do not have a university if it does not put the arts and sciences, i.e., liberal education, character education, at the center of things. You surely do not have a university with someone capable of this behavior as president, someone in whom moral education so obviously failed. It’s nothing less than an ethical debacle, for the school and the community.
Nonetheless, the Board of Trustees (including Mayor Pike) and the State Board of Regents will continue to have Biff’s back. If he looks bad, then they all look bad. And God only knows what kinds of strings they can pull. They have all of the resources and influence that power always has, and nothing suggests that they won't continue to use them on Biff's behalf. They don’t care about the destruction of one man’s career. Who is Varlo to them? And there’s the irony: Varlo Davenport, a man who loves Theater and acting, who has been the teacher and mentor to countless students, a man who devoted his life to a serious art for nothing but the love of that art and joy of seeing others develop their capacities in it—this man, sacrificed for the ambitions of a 2nd-rate careerist with no moral character. It's much more than a shame.
Previously devoted to an attempt to appeal to a possible better angel of Biff's nature, on the faulty assumption that there might be such an angel, this blog will now track the progress of Varlo's civil suit against Biff and the sundry other characters who participated in dragging him through hell, pitching him out the other side, and leaving him for dead.
Varlo filed his civil complaint in January, and the counselors of the state AG's office have now responded to it. What follows is an account of the AG's attempt to have the egregious shenanigans of Mark Houser, Biff, Don Reid, and others, dismissed--with prejudice. If this tactic is successful, these folks won't have to answer for cooking up a phony criminal case, suppressing evidence, etc.
I. Varlo's complaint asserts that his right to due process was violated. Now this seems like a no-brainer. After all, as the evidence shows, Biff and others concocted a plan to frame Varlo for a crime (the alleged "assault") that they knew did not happen. How did they know it did not happen? Among other reasons, it was because Don Reid had reviewed the video footage from the security camera that was in the classroom. Now, if you've followed the case at all, you may recall that Mr. Reid (we should call him Bishop, because of his ecclesiastical service in that capacity)--Bishop Reid claimed under oath in a court of law that there was no video footage of the incident because there never had been a video camera in the room. Yes, that's right, Bishop Reid, who also teaches "criminal justice" at DSU, allegedly either suppressed or destroyed evidence that would have prevented the case from ever going forward (he probably has a special lecture for his students on the emotional demands of lying in court; he tears up, no doubt, when presenting it). We know this because according to his own notes on the matter, the video did not support Cassidy Sorensen's claims. And it was for this reason also that our man Biff, no doubt after consulting that strange book of "family values" of his, ordered the camera removed from the room and any evidence of the presence of said camera to be covered.
There's more, but you get the point. Like I said, shenanigans. And like I also said, egregious. We'll have occasion to take a look at other aspects of this. First I want to focus on the response, on the AG's motion to dismiss the case against these actions and others involved in the bringing of the false charge. The AG's office has moved to dismiss everything related to Varlo being falsely charged with assault. This includes, Mark Houser's fabrication of evidence in the form of statements that he himself wrote but attributed to students; Bishop Reid and Biff, as previously mentioned, colluding to suppress/conceal the existence of security video footage of the alleged assault that did not support Cassidy Sorensen's (or Mark Houser's) fabricated accounts. It includes the Biff's and Paul Morris's two part plan to (1) leak false information suggesting that Varlo was guilty of some unknown but soon-to-be-revealed misdeed(s) and (2)--with the help of Bishop Reid--to get him charged with a crime. Recall, all of this was done for Biff's sake, to try save him from his incompetence, to persuade concerned faculty and others that he really is fit for the job. Perhaps you are still wondering, like I am, where the outrage is over this? Why does Biff still have his job? Why does Bishop Reid still have his job? Why does the DSU Faculty Senate do nothing to force them to account for themselves? But, alas, I digress.
The AG's argument as to why this particular part of the case should be dismissed is as follows: there really was no violation of Varlo's 14th Amendment right to due process because--get ready for this--he was found not guilty. That's right, it's as if they are saying "Hey, no harm done, so let's just forget about it." It all hinges on the definition of "process". The defense attorneys argue to limit the definition of "process" to the "trial." Accordingly, all of the aforementioned shenanigans are excluded from the "process," because the "process" is the trial only. Absurd as this may seem, they are able to cite some case law to support it. I'm not a lawyer, so I really have no idea how strong their argument is. It seems absurd to me in the true sense of a reductio ad absurdum, since if true it would mean that it never matters if people are brought up on false charges as long as they are found innocent. Their rights are violated only if they are found guilty on the basis of the false charges. But surely we don't have a legal system that allows for apparently dirty cops, like Bishop Reid, and apparently dirty university presidents, like Biff, to fabricate cases against people and to suppress evidence that would prevent the charges from ever being filed in the first place. Surely we don't have a system that allows such actions to be outside the definition of the "process" due to a citizen of the United States. Surely we don't have a system that allows such cases, cases that have serious and multiple negative effects on the lives of those so framed, cases that are prosecuted not for the sake of any alleged victim but just to make someone avoid looking like the incompetent administrator that he is. I say, surely we don't have such a system, one where a defense attorney just has to say "Hey, no harm done here. It's all good." Excluding all of the nefarious nonsense perpetrated by Bishop Reid and others from the definition of "process" should not work as a defense. If it does, then there may be a genuine constitutional question in this case that needs to be revisited by a higher tribunal.
I believe you are in a bit of a pickle, and I’m going to be tuned right in to see how it all turns out. In the meantime, I’d like to share with you my own thoughts on DSU’s statement regarding the not guilty verdict. There’s a very good response to it here: http://concernedfordixie.blogspot.com/
I’m simply adding my voice to that one.
I would wish you luck, but such a wish on my part would lack integrity. So I’ll just say that I hope you enjoy the proper consequences of your actions.
DSU's Statement is in italics; my response is in this script.
“With the conclusion of the City of St. George vs. Varlo Davenport trial, Dixie State University can now fully comment on the incident that occurred in Davenport’s introductory acting class in November 2014 without hindering legal proceedings.
Note that the purpose of what follows is not simply to “comment” on the classroom incident but also (and mostly) to try to justify DSU by slandering Varlo, his attorney, the defense witnesses, and, by implication, the jury for not agreeing with them. As you read, ask yourself this question: why is DSU do disappointed in the verdict? One could hardly be blamed for thinking, as someone pointed out, they would be glad one of their professors was found not guilty of assaulting a student. But clearly they would have rejoiced in a guilty verdict.
First, Dixie State University would like to acknowledge Davenport’s years of service to the institution. During his time at DSU, Davenport made positive contributions to the university’s theater program as well as to students’ development. However, the public should be aware that at the time of the incident, Davenport was on probation for aggressive behavior toward a fellow DSU employee. Even though the jury found Davenport not guilty of a misdemeanor charge of assault, the decision to terminate his employment was based on institutional policies and DSU’s commitment to keeping students safe.
If DSU wants to state the Varlo was “on probation”, then they should tell the whole truth about it, namely, that it was an informal probation issued by the untenured Theater Dept. Chair, the same person who made sure Varlo was fired before anyone ever spoke with him about the alleged incident in the classroom, that the “aggressive” behavior in question amounted to expressing frustration concerning work that was supposed to have been completed and was not. At the time of his termination, Varlo had asked for a due process hearing of the matter; that request had never been granted. I invite DSU to explain the “institutional policy” that was operative in this situation.
Dixie State University did not take part in charges filed against Davenport; that was a decision made by the victim, who was a minor at the time of the incident, and her parents. Dixie State University stands firm by its decision to terminate Davenport’s employment at the institution. During Davenport’s faculty review hearing, he admitted to pulling the student’s hair for a long period of time. Furthermore, Davenport stated that this particular technique is not a typical physical restraint exercise. Student safety is a top priority at Dixie State University, and the institution will not tolerate inappropriate behavior of any kind toward its students.
First, note that the statement refers to the “victim,” though a court of law determined she was not a victim of anything. Second, the assertion that DSU took no part in the criminal charges is clearly and demonstrably false. Consider: the alleged victim’s step-father testified in the courtroom (under oath) that he was told he didn’t have a choice as to whether to file charges. So, either he lied under oath, or the statement here is false. Which is it? Again, if DSU really had nothing to do with filing the charges, what were they doing in the courtroom flanking the prosecution, and why are they so darned disappointed in the outcome? On the other hand, what does the step-father gain from lying? He could easily say, “Yes, we wanted to file charges. DSU was reluctant, but we insisted,” and lose nothing. Instead he said they didn’t give him a choice. You be the judge as to who is telling the truth.
Regarding the technique, everything that was said in the courtroom by other acting teachers validated this form of pedagogy in acting classes. DSU’s statement here fails to mention that the alleged victim was participating in the exercises herself, for example, by punching another student’s open palms with her fists (was she assaulting the other student?). The point was to elicit the emotion necessary to perform the scene authentically. The claim that this is “inappropriate” behavior toward a student patently absurd. The statement invokes the faculty review hearing but omits its result: a jury of Varlo’s peers exonerated him and recommended his reinstatement. Thus, what the statement tacitly admits is that DSU was actually looking for a reason to fire Varlo. This is validated by the fact that Don Reid, who “investigated” the alleged assault not only did not talk to all of the students who were in the classroom when it happened. He also didn’t bother to talk to Varlo. That’s some “investigation.” Rather, he listened carefully to the faculty review hearing to try to find something Varlo said that, presumably, could be used against him. I invite DSU to explain regarding this and other actions the “institutional policies” to which they conform.
During the trial, the defense presented evidence of the common practice of physical restraint exercises in acting classes. Defense witnesses stated that while using physical restraint techniques, it is standard to provide students with an explanation of such physical exercises and/or provide descriptions within their syllabi. The defense witnesses added that the restraints are not intended to be traumatic experiences for students and none of them presented testimony that they had ever pulled a student’s hair in the manner that Davenport did. DSU would like to clarify that Davenport had no mention of such techniques on his class syllabus nor did he ever provide verbal instructions before pulling the victim’s hair or ask for her express consent.
Again, the student already was participating in the exercises. Her consent, as the trial jury seems to have agreed, was implied. And, please note, again, the alleged victim has been found not to have been a “victim” of anything other than an attempt to help her perform a scene from a play, one that she herself had chosen.
In the months leading up to the trial, the defense has made numerous false and inflammatory comments to the press and open court that misrepresented the university and its administration. These accusations were an attempt to take the focus off the assault charges and were an attempt at jury nullification.
This accusation lacks substance. Note one example is cited. For my part, I assert that much of this DSU statement is false and inflammatory, that it misrepresents Varlo, his attorney, the defense witnesses, the City Court of St. George, etc. The “jury nullification” bit suggests the contribution, if not the sole authorship, of DSU counsel. Charity restrains me from naming names, since said counsel is obviously in need of some coaching. But I’m sure DSU has an “institutional policy” that will help him out. Regarding attention being drawn away from the “assault” charge, it’s a bit hard to argue that that ever happened. Varlo was tried for assault. The whole question of the trial was whether he had assaulted a student. The jury said he did not. I’m sorry this disappoints DSU as much as it does. Their statement seems to want to “draw attention away” from the fact that he was found not to be guilty of assault. Unfortunately for the author, it draws attention to how desperate DSU was for a conviction.
The defense claimed that DSU did not cooperate with the defense’s discovery requests. However, Dixie State University has cooperated with every request from the court for information. Judge Read did not request emails related to Davenport’s administrative hearing, however, Judge Myers did, and the university immediately cooperated. The university believes the defense has abused the court system, particularly by filing a motion of contempt against President Richard B. Williams and calling for his arrest, and issuing subpoenas for the president and several DSU administrators to appear as defense witnesses. The university is pleased that Judge Myers saw through the unethical approach of the defense by denying the motion and subpoenas.
Uh huh. Unfortunately, not quite true. The defense requested all emails related to the incident, which the defense knew were many. DSU turned over a small file with a few emails in it. Judge Read, who recused himself because he was found (incontrovertibly) to have discussed ex parte with Mike Carter allowing DSU to remove an identifying email address from one of those emails, simply was not going to ask for any more emails. The university may believe the defense abused the court system, but I don’t think they do. The truth of the matter is they are angry at having had a conspiracy to prosecute an innocent man uncovered To anyone who believes DSU is being forthright and truthful in the matter, I ask you: Who is more likely to have abused the court system in this case, a theater professor who has been fired, left without resources and charged with a crime he obviously did not commit, or the public institution with essentially unlimited (taxpayer) resources that has done something unethical and stupid and wants to cover it up? Answer yourself honestly as to which seems more likely. The defense simply requested to see the investigatory files of DSU Police Chief Don Reid, which, in his words, consisted of “packets and boxes” full of information, along with emails related to Varlo and the incident. When you request that and in response get a few pages of documents and a handful of emails, you know something fishy is going on. You move for the subpoena and call for the administrators’ testimony, because they were all involved and you can’t get DSU to turn over information that could well prove your client’s innocence. And since Biff is the head, you file a motion to hold him in contempt—which he indeed was—in order to try to get the information that should have come to you as a matter of course. Is DSU unhappy that they finally had to turn over all the emails? Yes, yes indeed they are. I note that when the emails finally were turned over, they numbered in the thousands.
The grade the student received in Davenport’s class also became a point of discussion. Dixie State University cannot directly comment on these accusations, as discussing a student’s grades is a violation of The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The university can confirm that no improper actions took place concerning the student’s grade. The university can also confirm that the student didn’t receive any kind of offers or compensation in relation to the incident.
It’s hard to say what grade the student actually received. But this much is true: Varlo said he received an email instructing him to give the student an “A” grade for the class. The prosecution and DSU lawyers, in court, asserted (falsely) that no such email existed. When the emails were turned over, there, lo and behold, was an email to Varlo from Mark Houser instructing Varlo to give the student an “A” for the class, a grade that she in no way would have earned. Note that the DSU statement conveniently omits this part of the story.
DSU is disappointed with the defense’s witnesses openly perjuring themselves in court, such as Davenport’s family member denying his relationship to the defendant when testifying on his behalf — which was admitted on the audio recordings of the faculty review hearing — and another witness denying personal relationships with Davenport. Additionally, several of the student witnesses stated that Davenport did not pull the student’s hair, which directly contradicts the audio recordings of the faculty review hearing and their own written statements.
This part of the statement is as sloppy as it is repugnant. Whoever wrote the statement is, evidently, not terribly smart and should have their qualifications for the job reexamined. No “relative” of Varlo’s testified at his trial, making it impossible for the supposed “open perjury” to have occurred. As for the students, to say that they all are liars, which is what the statement says, is so incredibly childish as to be beyond belief. They testified as to what they remember now, almost two years later, of an event that, when it happened, did not strike them as significant. If there are small discrepancies in their testimony, does that mean they are blatantly lying? Note that these are either current or former DSU students. And this institution of higher learning, masquerading as a “university,” now slanders them without conscience.
Dixie State University respects the jury’s decision regarding the misdemeanor assault charge, but stands firm by its decision to terminate Davenport’s employment at the institution. DSU will always uphold policies and procedures that protect its students, faculty and staff.
If DSU respected the jury’s decision, they would have issued a different statement, i.e., one that did not implicitly accuse the jury of letting them down. DSU can stand firm by its decision until, as the saying goes, the cows come home. But there’s not an ounce of proof in any of this, or in anything they’ve put forward, that shows a single student, faculty or staff member needed protection from Varlo Davenport. Quite the opposite. It seems clear that he needed protection, not only from the failure of DSU administrators to follow their own policies and observe due process, but also from their conspiracy—and yes that’s what it was, and still is—to brand him a criminal. Let’s not forget that, as reported previously in this blog, their original effort was, on the basis of the same flimsy evidence that failed to convict him of misdemeanor assault, to get Washington County to charge him with felony child abuse. On that basis alone I suggest that these are not simply the good and decent people they present themselves to be
In consideration of all of the above, if you were in Varlo’s shoes, how would the claim that you had abused the legal system strike you? I'll give you one word, at least: ironic.
A final note, something else to think about. After the charges initially were filed, a St. George City Council member called Andrea Davenport, Varlo’s wife. She told her she had spoken with City Attorney Sean Guzman and he had said the city had a “really strong case” and that Varlo shouldn’t use Aaron Prisbrey as a lawyer but rather a public defender. And, she said, with the case being so strong against him, Varlo should take a guilty plea. Safe to say, this is what Don Reid and the other thugs were hoping for. That’s how all this was really supposed to go down, no important questions asked. Well, sincerest condolences, good old boys and girls . . . looks like this one got away from you.
There’s something else I want to mention to you. I almost forgot. It occurs to me that this trial might not actually go forward. I very much doubt that Cassidy Sorensen has ever really wanted to testify. And now that the trial is almost here, I think there’s a chance she might back out on you. It might even be the case that you and your advisers have decided this trial might not be in your best interest after all. So I’ll be only half surprised if, sometime between now and Wednesday morning, we learn that the charges are being dropped. I’m not saying that it will happen, but it’s not unreasonable to think it might.
If it does happen, here’s my prediction. The Spectrum will be ready with a story about the case. That story will include a statement either from Cassidy Sorensen herself, or from DSU, about how she has suffered so much because of that day in her acting class that she just wants to put it all behind her, can’t bear to be in the same room with her acting teacher, etc. She, or DSU, while expressing regret and indignation over the alleged “assault” and suggesting that the alleged perpetrator is escaping condign punishment, nevertheless will insist that, all things considered, a trial would be more than she could take. Regardless of what actually happens, I think you’d have to agree, Biff, that something like that would be par for the course.
Meanwhile, the truth will remain: Varlo was attempting to help Ms. Sorensen perform a scene she had chosen. And for doing so, the university that had employed him to teach acting, tried to call it "child abuse", and when that didn't stick, "assault." One thing's for sure, Biff, no one will ever, ever mistake you for a man of culture.
P.S. -- Have you visited the Temple lately? If not, I urge you to get there, because (a) it looks good to your fellow citizens and (b) I think I've given you some good things to think about as you meditate in the Celestial Room. Take Don Reid with you. It would be a good way for you two to spend an evening. I'll bet you could even go on paid time from work.
As you know, Varlo’s trial is this week. And recently I was reminded of something that I think a lot of people should know but do not. Remember back when you first decided you were going to have to try to press charges against Varlo, when you were getting all the bad press and flack for firing him? At one point you made this statement regarding Varlo: “a criminal investigation is being conducted by local law enforcement.” I’m sure you’ll remember that well enough. It was calculated, of course, to allow the broadest possible speculation, to make people wonder what nefarious and illegal deeds Varlo might be guilty of. You knew, of course, that the only thing you had to go on was the alleged classroom “assault,” and that the only “law enforcement” investigating anything was your cynical little henchman, Don Reid. But why not suggest that Varlo might be a real criminal? After all, even if it was underhanded and dirty, sort of like hitting below the belt, it was to your advantage. I hope you keep a record of both your actions and the moral maxims that are their basis. Since I suspect that you don’t, I may have to help you with it. And, there will be no need to thank me; I’ll be glad to do it. I’ll even send copies to your posterity, because I care about their moral education.
Anyway, your little statement worked. Even Varlo and those of us who know him couldn’t imagine what this “criminal investigation” was all about. So we did our best to discover what was going on. What we found out, Biff—and you know this, of course—is that Varlo was being investigated for felony “child abuse” (apparently because our alleged “victim” was still 17 at the time she enrolled in the acting class, i.e., the class in which acting is taught). Yes, the same evidence that has landed Varlo in city justice court for “assault” was, early on, forwarded to the Washington County Attorney as a child abuse case. Biff, this could not have happened without your stamp of approval, nor without the cooperation of (perhaps even at the instigation of) Brother Reid. I’m guessing Reid did his level best to try to write things up in such a way as to make that child abuse charge stick. And I’m guessing that it was urged on the County Attorney by both you and Reid, and perhaps others, so that the statement I’ve mentioned above, along with some other statements, could seem justified. Remember those other statements, Biff? I refer to the ones about how when the “truth” was known everyone would see what a bad guy Varlo is and how right you were to fire him. Well, here we are, almost a year and a half later, and what you managed to muster up was a contrived misdemeanor assault charge. Where’s all that other information you promised was going to come out?
Here’s a “truth” for you, Biff: a decent person would not try to stick someone with a bogus “child abuse” charge. That was done not just to try to make your decisions look right but to ruin Varlo completely, to stigmatize him. It shows a complete lack of regard for basic decency. It’s hitting below the belt and then sneering at your opponent while you celebrate your victory as though it were legitimate. I suppose we use various terms to refer to such people. Here’s one of them: thug. And, Biff, though I hate to say it, that’s you. It’s not just Varlo’s case that proves it. There’s also Joel Lewis. Let’s not forget how Brother Reid was suggesting to you that if Lewis didn’t cooperate when you pressured him to resign he could be charged with “witness tampering.”
Yeah, Biff, that’s quite the shop you’re running over there, quite the shop indeed. I hope no one who knows what’s going on is mistaking it for a university. Meanwhile, we’ll see how things turn out for Varlo. He’s a very good and decent man. I hope things work in his favor.
P.S. - Please convey my apologies to Doaja Hicks for these “inflammatory” statements.
As noted in the previous installment, you’ve got yourself a new in-house attorney, Mr. Doajo Hicks. And evidently he’s every bit as good a guy as you and Don Reid. Case in point, Hicks’s false statement to the Court regarding the email wherein Varlo was instructed to give the victim of the alleged assault an “A” for the class in which the alleged “assault” occurred, a grade she had not earned and which he did not intend to give her. Since I have an eye-witness account of just how that went down, let me tell you about it.
Varlo’s attorney, Mr. Prisbrey, had asserted that our alleged victim may have been compensated, so to speak, for her testimony against Varlo. In particular he had asserted that she may have been promised an “A” grade and given a job on campus. I myself think she may have gotten even more, but that’s another matter. In the hearing, Judge Meyers raised the question as to the source of the assertion about the grade. And it turns out that the source, or one of the sources, for information about the grade is Varlo himself. He stated in court that he had received an email instructing him to give the student an “A”. In response to this, Mr. Hicks immediately and without the slightest hesitation stated very clearly to the Court that “there is no such email,” thus effectively calling Varlo a liar, suggesting that Varlo is just making stuff up to try to help his case.
Now, Biff, before I say anything more, let’s note that this little move on Hicks’s part wasn’t very smart, and that if this is your new legal counsel perhaps you should have kept the search open a little longer to give other candidates an opportunity. I’m not saying Hicks is not tough (the bullet in the arm and all that) and doesn’t have a few tolerable qualities (just like you and Don Reid probably do, maybe), but think it through with me here: denying that the email existed was a really stupid move. So whether you hired him to be a sort of lawyer/PR hit man, i.e., hired him precisely because he is willingly and easily dishonest, or, on the other hand, because of his (prospective?) legal expertise, I think you’d have to agree that, on the basis of this one action alone, he’s more than a bit of a disappointment. Let me be clear: he shouldn’t have said that no such email existed unless he knew that no such email existed. What else can you call that but stupid? If he was mistaken and just thought that such an email couldn’t possibly exist, it was a pretty big gamble, and as big gambles usually do, it went against him. Alternatively, if he knew the email existed and just thought it wouldn’t be discovered, that was at least as big a gamble as the other. As it happens, after all (as reported by Dallas Hyland), such an email does indeed exist. It was pulled right off of the DSU server, per court order. It was an email from Mark Houser to Varlo, instructing Varlo to give the alleged victim and “A” that she had not earned, just like Varlo said. Score one for the honesty of Varlo Davenport.
What do you think, Biff? Will Hicks apologize, to Varlo for calling him a liar, and to the Court for making a false statement? What do you think he will have to say for himself? Will he say that he didn’t think the email existed? That would be his best defense, since it might preserve some vestige of honor for this practitioner of the "noble profession." Unfortunately, it would not clear him of the charge of stupidity. But let’s be more charitable: it would not clear him of the charge of having done something stupid. We’ve all done stupid things, right Biff? So he could be forgiven. And in that sense, we could chalk it up to a good learning experience for Mr. Hicks. I suppose the question you might consider is how many future “learning experiences” of this sort—of both Hicks’s and perhaps also your own—you can afford.
As for our “City Attorney,” Cosson, this occurs to me: that’s one hip cat who must be wondering like hell what sort of mess his St. George City masters have gotten him into. Oh, and he also, rather desperately by all accounts, asserted there “was no such email,” and that everything relevant to the case had “already been turned over.” Truly, Biff, on the basis of these examples, who couldn’t help but agree that our nation’s law schools need to do better?
I apologize for the long pause. When last I wrote, Varlo was just about to go to trial. But then a funny thing happened on the way to the courtroom. Judge Read and your buddy Mike Carter had a little ex parte session wherein Read clearly was going to allow Carter to just remove identifying information from a potential piece of evidence. Although this is a clear violation of legal procedure—and ethics—they both protested that they had done nothing wrong. Really. And your new buddy, Mr. Hicks, went so far as to say that in calling them on it Varlo’s attorney, Mr. Prisbrey, was committing a great “mockery of justice.” Come again?
Hicks evidently doesn’t think they were doing anything wrong either. But here’s a question for Hicks, and Read, and Carter, as well as for you: how would you feel if you were the accused? I mean, you’ve got the lawyer for the Attorney General’s Office and the Judge discussing evidence and deciding that some of that evidence can be secreted from you and your lawyer. Would that be okay with Read? Would he really be fine with that? And Carter? And Hicks? Hicks wouldn’t mind, wouldn’t think they were doing anything wrong by hiding possible evidence from him and his attorney? And how about you, Biff? I suppose you wouldn’t mind either? Of course you would mind! Anyone would mind! I predict you and Hicks both would say, or at least agree, that it was “mockery of justice.” Yes, I think so . . . if it were you.
And therein lies the rub, Biff. It’s not you, is it? So far you’re sitting pretty, right? Never mind that you’ve fired a man illegally and unjustly; never mind that you have conspired with other dishonest souls to falsely malign, slander and try to brand him as a criminal. Never mind that you’ve taken his livelihood and his career from him and his family. That’s all okay, too, right, because the career aspirations of Biff Williams must be preserved? In the end, that’s really what I have against you. Everything else is forgivable. Ignorance is forgivable; incompetence is forgivable; lack of credible credentials to be a university president? Also forgivable, since that fault is not in you but in those who promoted you to the position. But lying, Biff, slander, the willingness to take from somebody everything he has worked his life for just to save your paltry reputation as a somebody in this world. And to do it all without ever once speaking to the man himself, without making some effort, however small, to ascertain the truth. In sum: not to care about anyone beyond yourself. These are not venial sins, Biff; they are mortal. They betray what you yourself are, on the inside.
This is what I was referring to in my last entry. When I said there is a court in which you don’t stand a chance, I wasn’t referring to the one presided over by the Great Judge of the Universe, or some final tribunal of that god and his angels. Nope. I meant only the court of decency, honor, integrity, the court of the human heart. That court, Biff. That’s the one in which you already have lost, and in which you will continue to lose, day by day, until you make some effort to set things right. Even at this late date, you could still do that. All of your advisers would tell you not to, Biff, because it’s easier for them to perpetuate their corruption than to be honest. Odd, isn’t it, people who think they have too much to lose when they already have lost the most important thing of all? Think about it, Biff. And think of me as your “Abinadi” (I understand, at least, that you’re a “good Mormon”) and then decide your own fate.