Re: sorry.. this is draft you should look at
Sorry.. here is penultimate version for tonight. I added some paragraphs at the beginning and end that I hope will appeal to the character of Michael Crow, who after all, will be the one reading this, and a few other minor changes.
you MUST MUST state the facts accurately. you cannot say the first time was the tabloid article. the complaint re australia was first. try not to parse and be clever with details. I would also couch your comments as I believe or it appears. stating as fact that the Dean's recommendations is grossly inappropriate. shows the same disregard that they are accusing you of. you attack the judgment of the dean his staff and your accusers. not a winning strategy. you have lost the first round. attacking people is not an appeal. go to the law. its requirements that were not met. admit to a degree of social ineptitude. (for discrimination suit later). talking to others about what great work you do, is also a losing argument. they believe you do sexual things as a matter of course. banter is not harassment. no one complained, the silliness of suggesting a comment about a girl's inappropriate outfit rises to the level of a cause for termination of a tenured professor, needs to be looked at by others.
Why do you ignore the Australia incident BEFORE BUZZFEED
new paragraphs.. I could make it "my belief that the Dean's in the first paragraph, but I think that dilutes it too much. of course I believe that.. Instead I have moderated it by comparing it to the claims against me, and saying I will elaborate below. I have tempered the other statements in this paragraph.
At the outset, let me emphasize in the strongest terms that the Dean's recommendation is grossly inappropriate given the claims against me, for a variety of reasons that I will elucidate here. As I will describe, the Dean based his decision on an uncritical evaluation of a deeply flawed, highly biased, and factually incomplete investigation. Not enough effort was made to check the validity of certain claims against me when parties with direct knowledge were available, the credibility of individuals who were shown to have provided false information was not questioned, and other individuals at ASU who are familiar in depth with my experiences both inside and outside ASU were not contacted. Moreover, my behavior, and its implications for others, was strongly distorted and/or misrepresented.
You must be credible!!
she reported it to buzzfeed at same time as university... anyway.. editing that now.
yes..thanks. many more changes being made thanks to discussion with nancy.. many of which resonate with what you have already said.. stay tuned.
what others say about you is meanigless. every sexual harrasssmnt case has letters of recomendation. all silly. these things did not happen as described and even if they did, they dont rise to the level of dismissal. careful with regard diminishing the per diem payment. In, told. that is enough for jurisdiction. so when you say it cannot apply, it diminishes the rest of your argument.