I write to you now on almost the eve of Varlo’s trial. And because I never quite get over being dumbfounded by the fact that he’s actually going to trial, even now I almost don’t know what to say. I last mentioned I would write about the faculty hearing that reviewed the alleged incident of assault and Varlo’s termination. And as I’ve thought about it, I don’t know what more needs to be said than to repeat what’s been said again and again: THEY RECOMMENDED VARLO’S REINSTATEMENT. That’s it, Biff. They heard all of the available evidence. But now there was a critical difference: Varlo and other witnesses actually had a chance to provide the other side of the story. In other words, it was the fair hearing Varlo never received before you decided to fire him. It was fair enough, in fact, that even though Mark Houser was there pressing (for all he was worth) his case against Varlo, the jury of Varlo’s faculty peers could see the truth. And let me repeat: THEY RECOMMENDED HIS REINSTATEMENT.
Biff, it raises a tough question: what did you see that these people who also saw all the evidence didn’t see? Do you think they would have failed to understand if a student had been “assaulted”? Do you really believe that? Of course you don’t. So, prithee, do tell us the reason as to why you disregarded this faculty decision, which really should carry quite a bit of weight at a real university. Perhaps your studies in “Lifestyle Management” have made you preternaturally discerning? Or is it the online Ph.D. in “Curriculum and Instruction” that prepared you for such weighty considerations?
The truth, Biff, is clear to anyone who looks closely enough. And it’s ugly, Biff: you fired a tenured professor, on the basis of incomplete evidence (compiled by someone with a clear bias and agenda against him), to placate a single student and her family (who also had been manipulated by the man with the bias and agenda). And you upheld that decision even when a faculty jury unanimously rejected the student’s assertion that she had experienced anything other than a valid exercise in acting pedagogy. You did that because the student and her family demanded it, and because of Mark Houser’s incessant whispering that you should do so. You gave Varlo no consideration; you gave the student more than full consideration. The student received an “A” for the class (without ever having to complete it!); Varlo was fired, his pay and benefits terminated immediately. And anyone might have thought that would be enough, Biff. But no sir, not in the Biff Williams regime. It could be that the student's parents are so vindictive as to want to press charges -- precisely because the faculty jury rejected the claim that their daughter, who had not been attending class and also, by her own account, "wasn't having a very good week," had been assaulted. An alternative explanation is that you had to try to make yourself look competent, so you got together with Don Reid and cooked up a “criminal investigation,” and then finally got a friendly city attorney to file a “criminal” charge. Either thing, or some combination, could be true. In any case, if there's anything "criminal" in this whole affair, it sure as shootin isn’t on Varlo’s part.
You may get what you want out of this specious little case against Varlo, Biff. You and folks at the “The City” may have reached a shady agreement. Someone may already have, in so many words and hushed tones, guaranteed you a conviction of some sort. If so, good for you, Biff, good for you. I’m sure you and your buddies will continue to affirm to your Mormon leaders that you are “honest in your dealings.” “Yes, oh yes, of course.” And maybe you’ll continue to win the praise of Gail Smith the other good citizens of St. George. But in the only court that really matters, Biff, you don’t win. The trial there is always fair; and you don’t stand a chance.