Published On: Sat, Jul 16th, 2016

Former FAU Professor Sues University for Discrimination

Dr. Chunxue Victor Wang, a Florida Atlantic University professor of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology was fired from the university after being suspected of sending accusatory emails to faculty members.  Now, he is suing the university under the claim that his dismissal from his position was an act of discrimination. He accused the Board of Trustees of disregarding the Florida Civil Rights Act and claimed one count of deprivation for due process as evidenced by the Broward Palm Beach New Times. Although the lawsuit was filed on Friday, June 3, 2016, the first emails date back to 2014.

The emails signed by a “Mr. Joe” were traced back to Indonesia and blamed faculty of plotting amongst each other to maintain employee wages low and boost unqualified workers to higher positions. Thus, FAU faculty deduced that “Wang and Joe having both come from Asian descent, (Wang from China and Mr. Joe from Indonesia.) Wang or someone connected to him must have been the person behind the account.” The email account is under the name referring to a Chinese city rather than a location in Indonesia according to the Broward Palm Beach New Times.   It’s also curious that the username mentions a “kid” which may give a signal as to the age of the culprit. But FAU officials seem to be convinced Wang is to blame.

The faculty also took into consideration the professor’s salary complaints around the same time the email campaign was underway.   The lawsuit stated that Wang had come upon the realization he was receiving “19,000 dollars less in comparison to his tenured colleagues that were not of Asian descent.”  Additionally, Wang acknowledged that he had never been to Indonesia as stated in the Palm Beach Post. Despite this, the professor was fired on May 24, 2016 after failing to comply with the universities orders to offer “an official apology” to the professors mentioned in the emails.

Wang decided to seek legal help after he obtained a “C” on his teacher evaluation. In fact, he was also deferred for five days from campus as well as invited to attend a training workshop for anti discrimination, ironically enough.

“It’s not right of a prominent Florida university to try and get rid of a good professor while paying him less,” said an FAU student who wished to remain anonymous.

It seems Dr. Wang has left behind quite a legacy at the university as he has appeared on CCTV America for a segment on vocational education and written over 200 books and journal articles. Some of them even employed as textbooks for courses specializing in Strategic Leadership and Management. Prior to his dismissal, the professor had also been working on editing the International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology alongside Columbia professor Dr. Lyle Yorks and adult educational theorist, Dr. Patricia Cranton according to his college of education profile on the university’s website.

Displaying 44 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Jeff says:

    Guy sounds like a piece of work. Speaking of which, the amount of publications alone in that amount of time is a huge red flag and I would have them peer reviewed a second time. Since tfa didn’t mention that he was tenured himself, he would make a good bit less than a Prof with tenure duh. Thanks also for the worthless anonymous quote in tfa. Top notch journalism there.
    From a tech standpoint, fau dropped the ball. Probably has a VPN setup stateside for his relatives overseas to access the internet outside of the great firewall of China. Indonesia is lax with hosting (why all the illegal movie sites host there and Estonia lol) so that gels but really should have checked his laptop for the VPN connection saved. Not like he setup a new one each time from scratch…if he did… Good luck to all involved.

    • Mohamad says:

      Jeff, you really sounded like Dr. Ira Bogotch who has been so jealous of Dr. Wang’s publications. You’d be surprised if you search for his books on Amazon.
      Chair Shockley is a known Wily Fox who ordered FAU technicians to have searched Dr. Wang’s on campus computer “numerous” times and found nothing to corroborate his fabricated discriminatory opinions against Dr. Wang. Jury will laugh at his idiocy for sure and Kelly may eventually fire him because over the years, Shockley has fired way too many stellar faculty and students. He should have learned a lesson after he fired Micheal Galbraith. He is SO Guilty and should go to Hell because Micheal was a STAR here and was recently killed at a very young age. If Shockley did not remove him, Micheal would be living like you and Bogotch.

      Jeff, you can never out start the wiley fox, Shockley. He is a criminal and deserves jail time, many women full time and adjunct faculty (removed by him) say so.

      • Val B. says:

        Due Process of Law: Lesson for Defendants:

        The most obvious requirement of the Due Process Clause if that states afford certain procedures (“due process”) before depriving individuals of certain interests (“life, liberty, or property”). Although it is probably the case that the framers used the phrase “life, liberty, or property” to be a shorthand for important interests, the Supreme Court adopted a more literal interpretation and requires individuals to show that the interest in question is either their life, their liberty, or their property–if the interest doesn’t fall into one of those three boxes, no matter how important it is, it doesn’t qualify for constitutional protection. Thus, for example, the Court has ruled that the government may severely damage an individual’s reputation (by, for example, putting his name on a list of “known shoplifters”) without affording process.

        The Due Process Clause serves two basic goals. One is to produce, through the use of fair procedures, more accurate results: to prevent the wrongful deprivation of interests. The other goal is to make people feel that the government has treated them fairly by, say, listening to their side of the story.

        The Due Process Clause is essentially a guarantee of basic fairness. Fairness can, in various cases, have many components: notice, an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful way, a decision supported by substantial evidence, etc. In general, the more important the individual right in question, the more process that must be afforded. No one can be deprived of their life, for example, without the rigorous protections of a criminal trial and special determinations about aggravating factors justifying death. On the other hand, suspension of a driver’s license may occur without many of the same protections.

        The cases on this page demonstrate the Supreme Court’s approach to key questions concerning procedural due process. Board of Regents v Roth shows how the Court has defined “property” interests for purposes of the due process clause. The case involved the decision of a public college not to renew the contract of an untenured professor. The Court concluded that the professor had no “liberty” interest in any specific teaching job, and that he had no “property” interest in his job because he lacked “a legitimate claim of entitlement” under state law to his job. The Court noted that he would have had such a claim of entitlement had he been tenured, because then the college would have had to make a specific showing of poor performance in order to sustain its dismissal. Without a legitimate claim of entitlement to his job, the Court reasoned, there is nothing to have a hearing about. Property interests, the Court stress, must be found in the statutory or common law of the jurisdiction.

        Unlike property interests which have their source in state law, the Court sees “liberty” interests as having their source in the Constitution. Deprivations of certain basic liberties (such as the freedom to travel, the freedom to live with and raise children, the freedom from incarceration, or the freedom to not be subjected to physical violence or forced medical treatment) will trigger a requirement that the government afford due process. But not every serious injury inflicted by the government is necessarily a deprivation of a liberty interest, according to the Court. In 1971, in Constantineau v Wisconsin, a case involving a governmental posting of the names of “excessive drinkers,” the Court concluded that some sort of hearing had to be afforded before such a list of names could be sent out–an individual has a protected liberty interest in her good name and reputation, the Court said. However, five years later in Paul v Davis, a case involving the government’s distribution of a list of “active shoplifters,” the Court reversed course and held that damage to an individual’s reputation–standing alone–is not deprivation of a protected liberty interest. The Court distinguished Constantineau, now finding that the individual’s additional loss of a right to purchase alcohol was a key element in the outcome of that earlier case. In Vitek v Jones (1980), the Court found that due process must be afforded before an inmate in solitary confinement was transferred from a state prison to state mental hospital, where he would be forced to undego behavioral modification. The Court rejected the state’s argument that inmates had already lost their liberty, so that transfer from one state institution to another shouldn’t trigger a requirement of due process.

        The last two cases demonstrate how the Court has balanced individual interests against government interests to determine how much process is due in specific contexts.

        In Mackey v Montrym, the Court considered whether the state can suspend for 90 days without a prior hearing the driver’s license of a motorist who refused to take a breathalyzer test following a motor vehicle accident. The Court, voting 5 to 4, held that the state could immediately suspend licenses in such cases. The majority gave considerable weight to the state’s asserted interests in removing drunk drivers from highways as soon as possible and in providing drivers with a strong incentive to take the test. Although the Court recognized that people today have a “substantial” interest in keeping licenses to drive, it also stressed that the risk of erroneous deprivation was low because only rarely will there be a real dispute as to whether the motorist refused or did not refuse to take the breathalyzer test. The dissenters saw a greater likelihood of factual disputes (e.g., did the refusal follow a clear demand with a warning of the consequences?) and noted that the state’s argument about getting drunks off the road fast was undercut by the fact that a person who failed the breathalyzer test would be allowed to continue to drive until his trial date.

        In Cleveland Board of Education v Loudermill (1985), the Court considered whether two school district employees could be suspended without pay until hearings were held to determine whether they had, in fact, violated school district rules as the district had alleged. The Board of Education argued that since it never had to give its employees ANY right to a hearing, it should have the flexibility to give them a right to a hearing, but allow a pre-hearing suspension without pay. The Court rejected this “bitter-with- the-sweet” approach, and said that the minimum process due is determined as a matter of federal constitutional law, not state statutory law.

        Some examples of procedural protections that may be required for certain types of deprivations:

        1. Elevated burdens of proof that the government must satisfy, such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” (criminal cases) or “clear and convincing evidence” (termination of parental rights).
        2. The right to counsel.
        3. The right to a pre-deprivation hearing.
        4. The right to cross-examine witnesses.
        5. The right to have a neutral person review an adverse decision.
        6. The right to recover compensation for a wrongful deprivation.
        7. The right to be present when adverse evidence is presented to the fact-finder.

      • E. Watlin says:

        Robert Shockley is simply a THUG. However, his protectors are more disgusting. Employers may not fire even at-will employees for illegal reasons, and discrimination is illegal. Employers are forbidden from retaliating against employees who have engaged in certain legally protected activities. They had no authority to deprive anyone of due process of law, which is guaranteed by U.S. constitution. Some former adjunct faculty say Robert Shockley’s mental faculties are failing since he is over 70 years old. Some students say he should be replaced by Jennifer Bloom and retire…

        • Andy P says:

          What is the evidence that your protected conduct led to your termination?
          The most difficult part of a retaliation claim is showing a causal connection between your protected conduct and the adverse action taken against you. Timing can be evidence of a causal connection. If your employer fires you shortly after you file a charge of discrimination, one can infer that your protected conduct was the real reason for your termination. A recent Supreme Court decision held that retaliation claims must be proved according to a ‘but- for- causation’ standard. This means that you must show that the retaliation would not have occurred if you had not engaged in the protected activity, like filing a charge of discrimination. For example, if your employer claims that you were terminated for some specific misconduct, you could show that you didn’t engage in the alleged misconduct at all and therefore your discrimination charge is the only possible reason for your termination. The type of evidence you have and the amount of evidence you have against your employer can help you meet this but-for standard.

      • Dennis Keefe says:

        Reasons for Dropping this Adult and Community Education Course: Grant Writing and
        Program Management for Adult and Non-profit Organization: Academic Fraud, False
        Advertising, Non-CAEP Qualified Teacher, Unauthorized Students Make Up Class.
        Please note: This is the third explanation that I have given to the department. Refer to the
        REGISTRAR’S document sent in last week by 1) Dennis Keefe, and 2) Dr. Wang for the other information. I cannot repeat that information here because I no longer have it; the
        University has erased all my Blackboard Information. Why did you not do the drop seven days
        ago when Dr. Wang and I sent it in just as the Registrar required?
        Before enrolling in this course, I read through the syllabus approved earlier in the year by the
        department chair, the college curriculum chair, the college dean, the UGPC chair, and the
        graduate college dean. The title of this approved course is Grant Writing and Program
        Management for Adult and NonProfit (sic) Organizations. Further, the course description reads:
        This course provides an opportunity to explore the historical and philosophical approaches to
        grant writing and resource development in adult and community education, nonprofit
        organizations, or other community serving organizations, as well as the trends that are evolving
        such as the use of technology, sustainable practices, data management and analysis. Regarding
        the prerequisite for the course, the approved syllabus says that the student must take the course
        called ADE 6381, also known as Leadership I, a course that concentrates on ADULT learning and
        I came to Florida Atlantic University to study Adult and Community Education, not to learn
        about how to write up grant proposals; however, since this course requires that all students, as
        prerequisites, study Adult Learning and Teaching, and since the announced content fit my career
        trajectory, I decided to enroll (Our department did not have even ONE course that was on the
        required course list for my doctorate this semester!). I certainly expected the University to keep
        its side of the contract, but apparently, virtually all of the students in the course have NOT filled
        the requirements for the prerequisites. This needs to be investigated.
        I have decided to drop this course, and add a directed independent study, for three reasons.
        However, please note that I have already explained this (starting ten days ago) on the form that
        the Registrar’s Office gave to me, and I insist that the registrar told me that the ONLY paper I
        needed to fill out was theirs. Therefore, may I ask why the additional delays form the
        Department of Educational Leadership? Last week – after the Registrar – you sent me an
        additional request, and then yet another request, and now another, making FOUR in total! Also,
        remember, that you yourself dropped me from this course well after it had started in January,
        2016. I am still waiting for an explanation for your blatant misrepsect of FAU procedure because
        this you did WITHOUT either my or my professor’s authorization, in violation of the rules at
        Now for the reasons why I have now withdrawn from this course:
        Reason Number One: The course that was announced is NOT the course that is offered. It has
        been unashamedly changed. We have had NOTHING about Adult Education, nor about
        Community and Nonprofit ORGANIZATIONS. Nothing about the history, nor the philosophy.
        Can we call this false advertising?
        Reason Number Two: The course does not concern grants for ADULT AND COMMUNITY
        PROJECTS; it, rather, concentrates on RESEARCH GRANTS for INDIVIDUAL students who
        are already under the tutelage of STEM professors. Almost all students come from the discipline
        of Marine Biology. Their research projects are very specifically defined and involve, for
        example, the tensile strength of shark skin, concentrations of acidity in sea water, the migratory
        life of manatees, and so on. By accepting this kind of students at the expense of real students of
        Adult and Community Education, are we committing academic fraud?
        Reason Number Three: The course is not taught by an experienced professor. In fact, I think
        she just graduated from this very department. Have we overstepped CAEP regulations? Further,
        she does not know how to teach adults, nor make minimal adaptations for students who are
        handicapped visually like myself. At least three times in class, I had to make the request that the
        teacher use a font size on PowerPoint that was larger than 12 pt. I have never met an
        experienced teacher in my life that uses less than 18 pt for screen-work. I also mentioned this to
        the teacher privately, and, as I recall, also mentioned this in an email, and she acknowledged that
        I had this problem. In the last class I attended in March, the font size this time was 11 pt, with an
        entire screen filled with verbiage. Hopeless.
        The teacher also does not know how to use Blackboard. For example, many sections of
        Blackboard directly contradict the already drastically altered syllabus for the course. The
        syllabus gives three required books for purchase; however, the teacher does NOT use these
        books, but has placed more than 3,100 pages of ONLINE READING. I had always tried to do
        my readings well before the class meeting, but apparently, I was the only students to make such
        an attempt.
        Reason for adding Directed Independent Study
        Given that there are no courses of Adult and Community Education available for me (nor for
        many other graduate students), the Directed Independent Study is the only way that I can further
        my education in the field of ADULT learning. I have decided to delve into SDL, self-directed
        learning, as described by Houle (1961), Knowles (1978), and especially, Allan Tough (1971). I
        intend to follow the research trajectory form the 1960s to the present time, and do some original
        research with a sample of polyglots from Europe, or with a sample of adult learners over the age
        of 30 (or perhaps 65, not sure yet) of indigenous languages from North and South America such
        as Navajo, Cherokee, Aztec, Quechua and so on. Only the literature review will allow me to
        make the right choice for the primary research.

        Dennis Keefe
        Presidential Scholar
        Adult and Community Education

      • Bob Z. says:

        The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said it resolved 97,443 charges of employment discrimination in fiscal year 2016 and secured more than $482 million for victims of discrimination in private, federal and state and local government workplaces.
        Charges of employer retaliation, racial bias and discrimination due to disability were the most common charges.
        A word from our sponsor:

        Join Insurance Journal’s community dedicated to helping agents find markets.
        Sign up is free. It takes less than 60 seconds.

        EEOC legal staff resolved 139 lawsuits and filed 86 lawsuits alleging discrimination in fiscal year 2016. The lawsuits filed by EEOC included 55 individual suits and 31 suits involving multiple victims or discrimin¬atory policies.
        The $482 million recovered for victims of discrimination included $347.9 million for victims of employment discrimination in private sector and state and local government workplaces through mediation, conciliation, and settlements; $52.2 million for workers harmed by discriminatory practices obtained through litigation; and $82 million for federal employees and applicants.
        At the end of the fiscal year, EEOC had 168 cases on its active docket, of which 48 (28.6 per-cent) involve challenges to systemic discrimination and an additional 32 (19 percent) are multiple-victim cases. EEOC said it achieved a successful outcome in 90.6 percent of all suit resolutions.
        The EEOC said it continued to work with employers through mediation to resolve charges voluntarily. EEOC’s mediation program achieved a success rate of over 76 percent – saving resources for employers, workers and the agency.
        EEOC resolved 1,650 charges and recovered $4.4 million for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals who filed sex discrimination charges with EEOC in fiscal year 2016. Additionally, the data show a steady increase in the four years the agency has been collecting LGBT charge data. From fiscal year 2013 through fiscal year 2016, nearly 4,000 charges were filed with EEOC by LGBT individuals alleging sex discrimination, and EEOC recovered $10.8 million for victims of discrimination.
        Top 10
        The top 10 employment charges handled by EEOC in 2016, in descending order, were:
        • Retaliation: 42,018 (45.9 percent of all charges filed)
        • Race: 32,309 (35.3 percent)
        • Disability: 28,073 (30.7 percent)
        • Sex: 26,934 (29.4 percent)
        • Age: 20,857 (22.8 percent)
        • National Origin: 9,840 (10.8 percent)
        • Religion: 3,825 (4.2 percent)
        • Color: 3,102 (3.4 percent)
        • Equal Pay Act: 1,075 (1.2 percent)
        • Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act: 238 (.3 percent)

      • Nigual L. says:

        Dr. Valerie C. Bryan, From a tech standpoint, you and Dr. Robert Shockley did not drop the ball. You and Shockley ordered FAU police to have searched everyone’s computer on campus and they found nothing other than a private email you gave to Shockley for him to make a fuss over a few choice lines according to your Presidential Scholar’s account. You have been speaking detrimentally of Dr. Wang for years. Your goal is to hire more and more of your current and former students from the same PHD program to teach us. This is called “inbreeding” and against accreditation standards. You have been engaged in this academic fraud at FAU and higher up leaders kept one eye open, the other closed. I did not want to graduate from the department, but realized your program will be shut down sooner or later. I chose to graduate ASAP.

        • Lu Duffy says:

          Hello, Dr. Niguel,

          Totally agreed. Misogynist Dr. Shockley (Dr. Mountford gave him the name/label) and Racist Dr. Valerie C. Bryan never liked this professor of color; they did the same thing to Dr. Dianne Wright.

    • S. Rios says:

      Agreed. Shockley is such a guilty scoundrel that he should be taken to court. He simply ganged up on Dr. Wang, an exceptional professor and scholar. It is ironical FAU did his 360 chair evaluation within 1.5 years. To cover his own ASS, Shockley perhaps wanted to scapegoat a minority faculty. However, this time, he picked a wrong one. FAU will lose, big time. Shockley engaged in “systematic and intentional” discrimination and retaliation. Please note in 2011, Shockley introduced Dr. Wang as a nationally and internationally recognized scholar.
      This time, no one will be able to protect Shockley. His long time buddies, Bristor and Hawkins will face trial…

      This department needs a chair who must be a leading scholar and ethical person, not a champion of discrimination and retaliation! How pathetic Shockley’s CV has nothing…

    • M. Mountfo says:

      Obviously according to these details, President Kelly’s going to do more damage than good in his tenure here if we gain the heretical reputation as the one university in the nation that fires tenured professors. He should have stopped Shockley’s cohort (seeming racists) from taking abusing their “power”!

      • Dennis Keefe says:

        The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
        A Presidential Scholar’s Views and Actions
        Related to the Suspension of Dr. Wang
        from the Department of Educational Leadership

        Before you read this message, you may wish to watch The Ministry of Silly Walks by Monty Python. Also, you can take a glance at Robin Hood Men in Tights by Mel Brooks (version in German, minute 22:37 to minute 24:03).
        Do not worry if you do not understand the German because actions speak louder than words, kind of like in the department of Educational Leadership, as you will shortly see.
        This is a rather long message, so to cut to the quick, if you just want to read the GOOD, go to line 46; if you are interested in the BAD, try lines 64 to
        259, the BAD starts at the end of April, 2015; and if you only want the gory details, hop down to the UGLY on line 260. Oh, and there is an introduction, too, if you feel like skimming that.
        And to spare you reading all this message: I want to withdraw from the Department of Educational Leadership because of the unfair, unethical and illegal action against my professor, Dr. Wang, for whom I moved from China to the United States.
        The introduction
        I am writing this message to explain partly why my coming to study Educational Leadership at Florida Atlantic University from abroad was a
        very poor life decision, and also, very definitely, the worst educational move I have ever made in my ten years of university study.
        Before deciding to come here, I had a very good job at the University of Nanjing, in China, teaching marketing and management in the MBA Program of that school, along with giving the course on writing research
        papers at Johns Hopkins, in their international program. I also was an active program director, and volunteer, with close to 1500 hours of free teaching in China.
        I left my house in China, which I still own, and came here to Boca Raton
        for three reasons: First, I am interested in working with much older adults
        (age 90 and over), and Boca has a very large such population. Second, the
        school, FAU, supposedly had a good Adult and Community Education
        Program, and the Lifelong Learning Center was declared to be the best in
        the entire USA. Who can resist that? And third, Dr. Wang, is a
        professor here. This convinced me to come.
        To be honest, I did not know precisely that I would be interested in
        educational gerontology with the study of learning and the very, very old. It
        was by taking classes here that I discovered that virtually untapped need.
        And besides, I love old people, always have. I am having a wonderful time
        and last semester did a directed independent study on three nonagenerians,
        two of whom were teachers. Next week I will be a student myself in the
        class of Mr. Boss, who is 102 years old, and who invited me to attend his
        class on happiness and healthy living.
        The Good
        But before I talk about the bad and the worse of the Educational Leadership
        Program, and the Adult and Community Education, let me say some nice
        things because I have of lot of compliments to hand out, and some
        accolades for the teaching here. First, for the seven or eight professors that
        I have had, I am very happy. I enjoyed every minute of class, although I
        sometimes hoped that there would be more . . . well, minutes.
        The students are a great plus at Boca, also. Many of them bring a vast
        wealth of experience from their teaching on so many steps of the
        educational ladder: from preschool to postgraduate, and all of these teacherstudents
        were easy to work with. Twenty five years ago when I was doing
        my MBA, I used to get annoyed by the neoliberal wonderboys and
        wondergirls in my class at the University of Illinois, but FAU students have
        much less hubris and much more humility. FAU students in education
        cooperate rather than compete, and this is, in my view, what the world
        needs, especially considering the lemming-like rush of American politicians
        off the precipitous promontory located far, far right of the traditional
        American center.
        The Bad
        That then is the good, succinctly put, so what is so bad about the Florida
        Atlantic University Department of Educational Leadership? Well, first,
        let’s try leadership. I do not see any. I see friendly administrators with
        smiles administering like those who pray for victims of gun shootings or
        terrorist bombings. That is the positive side: leaders, managers,
        administrators with smiles and some good intentions. And frankly, among
        them, some very good people, ready to serve. They walk straight and talk
        straight. We have some people here who walk their talk. They are not in
        the The Ministry of Silly Walks.
        However, there is a negative side. What I and many other doctoral students
        see is a very bloated administration of people who like to control without
        consulting, make edicts without listening, promote their own careers, and
        above all, preserve their jobs even if it means sacrificing an honest man, or
        trying to make sure that no graduate students say anything about the
        moribund status of the adult education section to an “outsider” like, well,
        Dr. Kelly. I will not go so far as to label the administrators that I have seen
        as members of the “Ministry of Silly Walks” (Try it in YouTube if you like),
        but I will say that in ten years of university work, this is the FIRST
        university where I had even ONE administrative problem, and here I have
        had six major ones. SIX. Six at FAU. None elsewhere. Six in one year
        here; none in nine years elsewhere.
        Let me give you an example of a lack of support services for doctoral
        students in Educational Leadership, specifically one with a nefarious turn to
        In late Spring this year, I was called into the office of one particular
        administrator who told me sufficiently point blank: “If you are not happy
        with the program WHY DON’T YOU LEAVE?” Unhappy with the
        program? What? On the contrary, I was ecstatic with my learning at FAU.
        Dennis, that is me, was in a state of euphoria in early April. You would
        think I was the guy Cyril O. Houle was writing about when he coined the
        term learning-oriented adult students. The question to me, which caught
        me totally by surprised seemed, well, a little silly. I was very satisfied in
        early April: I had finished my research in the archives of the Highlander
        Folk School and passed the peer reviews for publication of an article
        entitled Andragogy in the Appalachians. Also, in early Spring I was
        formally invited to give a Heritage Lecture at Chautauqua, based on a
        chapter that originally was a term paper for Dr. Wang’s class. Further, I
        liked all my courses and all my teachers. I was really glad I took Dr.
        Morris’ class on advanced statistics because I learned much more than just
        numbers and probabilities.
        Additionally, I was buying and perusing, usually in great detail, at least one
        book per week about adult education (by the way, I was also doing class
        work!). The Wimberly Library knows me very well, too; in fact, I am not a
        great student, but I bet that I could win a popularity contest with the
        librarians in Boca Raton, and those of you who know me will say: certainly
        the contest is not based on his looks!
        Yes, at the start of April, 2015, FAU had one very happy intellectual
        warrior. A happy warrior with my classes, my teachers, my fellow students,
        my books, my endeavors to publish, and the encouragement of Dr. Kelly to
        set up the first Southern Florida International Language Festival. By the
        way, my Language Festivals have been on prime TV in three of the
        countries where I set them up. Want to see me on the number one French
        TV, TF1 speaking French? How about me in China on national TV. By the
        way that festival of mine (I organized and trained 100 teachers, 67
        languages, 100 service personnel, and more). The festival that I designed
        for England was also on national TV, BBC Breakfast, but I do not have that
        Back to April: April came in with happiness, and went out with so much
        sadness. So what happened in April that was so bad? Well, first I was
        informed I could lose my Presidential Scholarship. Please reread that: I
        was told that the University could take away my Presidential Scholarship.
        This was a bomb, and it must have come from a drone because I had no
        inkling something like that could happen. The reason for having my
        scholarship taken away? One year after I was accepted into the program of
        Educational Leadership, I was informed that I needed an obscure transcript
        from the Vietnam War Era, whose relevance was naught, whose importance
        was zero. Why didn’t they tell me that before I bought a house in Florida?
        Can any program be so silly? I do not buy what the department said:
        Wooden nickels from the Leprechaun’s pot.
        Look, Florida Atlantic University, you cannot officially admit a student to a
        university, give a presidential scholarship, and one year later, say, “Oh, by
        the way, forgot to mention ha ha ha, that we are not interested in your
        honors masters in applied linguistics, nor the MBA at a major school, nor
        your stellar classes at Berkeley, nor your IBM record and the courses they
        paid for you at UCLA, nor your top diploma at the Goethe Institut in
        Germany, nor the Escuela Oficial de Idiomas en Spain, nor the Alliance
        Francaise in France, and we don’t care if you set the record score of 37
        years in the University of Arizona Vocabulary Contest, what we want is
        what no other school has ever asked for, we want that semester 45 years ago
        that you took at Illinois State University, (the school that I visited BRIEFLY
        so that I could come back to be with my father, who was dying). This is a
        silly and tragic walk, as in The Ministry of Silly Walks if I have ever seen
        one. Just silly. As silly as hee haw. Do contracts and agreements mean
        nothing any more in Florida? Are admission contracts, from the
        administration of Educational Leadership like pie crusts, meant to be
        broken? The administration has the power; the students have none. Why
        torment a student, beginning in April with something that is patently unfair
        and probably goes against accreditation policy?
        If the University of Illinois, where I received two, two-year master’s degrees
        (in fact, five years of graduate study in total) was not concerned with a
        lilliputian transcript of 1970 from Illinois State University when I
        STARTED my first masters in 1986, why would any school still be
        interested is a handful of classes after I graduated from a masters in applied
        linguistics and a master’s in business? How about my high school
        transcript? (By the way, I got an F in English in high school, but later
        atoned for that sin by teaching Freshman Rhetoric at the University of
        Illinois, where with my last rating of 20 fives, and one four was – in other
        words – the highest in the English department. I do know some English,
        but truth be told, I have never, ever, studied to get a good grade). Silly.
        And the cause, the quest for the opposite of a holy grail transcript, of a silly
        walk to follow: mine and the university’s.
        Yes, silly, but Illinois State University could NOT find the transcript for
        weeks, they even laughed when I told them what it was for. It took close to
        a month, and finally somebody dug it up in some archives. Now, I started a
        course at FAU four weeks late because of this silliness. No apologies from
        the University, just a “DON’T TELL ANYONE ELSE ABOUT THIS.”
        Well, I would have kept it all quiet, after all it is an instance of another silly
        walk, but I have been hit with the horror of my professor being suspended
        because of a PRIVATE EMAIL. The crap, pardon my French, hits the fan.
        I have, after April, 2015, gotten no help from the administration of
        Educational Leadership despite a promise in April that I was not to worry
        because even though I (this is also silly) was late registering for a summer
        course, I would not be hit with a late fee. Well, I was hit with a late fee of
        $100, and to be fair, it was later removed. However, I was hit with a
        parking ticket, and this has not been removed. Further, by the time I was
        allowed to register, only ONE class in my field was available for the Fall
        Semester. One course, and I am required as a presidential scholar to take
        three! There would have been two, but by the time my hold was removed,
        the History and Philosophy of Higher Education Class was full, with a
        waiting list (Please do no ask me to explain how the system was so bollixed
        up that if I also added my name to the wait list, another $3000 was pegged
        on my account). At IBM we used to call this a comedy of errors. At FAU,
        this is what I will now call a silly walk, a problem that comes from an
        administration not at all concerned about successful graduate students in
        educational gerontology.
        Why did I start at a school where the courses even in the broad field of
        adult education are so few that I can take only one course per semester that
        meets the listed requirements? Required three; offered one. Who is
        minding the store? Well, as luck would have it, the History and Philosophy
        course changed, in late September, from a one-person-on-the-waiting-list
        status to one, and only one, space available. I jumped at the chance to
        enroll. I got permission from the professor of another course to drop it (it
        had not yet begun), and I immediately enrolled in the History and
        Philosophy of Higher Education Course. Result: I was required to pay over
        $3000 in extra fees! I am not kidding, folks. Well I immediately contacted
        Educational Leadership, and after several emails, and a personal message
        from the department head, I was told that, sorry Charlie, YOU HAVE TO
        PAY $3000 for changing a class. That is the fee; we warned you. You have
        sinned my son, against the bureaucratic rules of Florida Atlantic University.
        Now, dear reader, please remember that it was the school’s fault in the first
        place: they did not let me register for weeks, then the class that was
        required for me was completely filled; then, I had to wait and wait, all
        summer, all August, and finally at the end of September a place became
        I talked to many people, again, and everyone including all teachers that I
        talked to thought that something was very wrong. I checked other
        universities: the Harvard Divinity School charges $10 for those errant
        students who cross the line, and dare to go where the academic grass is
        greener. I further tried to remember all the times, very few, in my
        academic life when I needed to withdraw from a course, drop and add a
        course. I started going through my life as an administrator. Everything
        indicated to me that it must be impossible to charge a student in this way.
        University usury; OK, that is a misnomer, but believe me the pain on the
        family is just as great. In conclusion, everyone and every other university
        thought it was WRONG, except MY OWN DEPARTMENT. What is a
        program change peccadillo at Harvard is some kind of major sin, requiring
        a full and contrite pecuniary peccavi in the department of Educational
        Leadership at FAU.
        Why did all of these terrible things start rather suddenly at the end of April?
        Hmmm. . . the end of April. April? What had I done wrong? I thought I
        was a pretty good collegiate citizen. During the year I gave more than four
        volunteer days to the Educational Leadership Department. My wife also
        helped. When the Chinese educators visited, we accompanied them to
        Miami, to charter schools, to magnet schools, and even until midnight we
        were driving many of them around Southern Florida. I also gave volunteer
        time outside the department, helping judge poster presentations for research
        projects. I was also working with the University, after the express
        encouragement by Dr. Kelly, to set up the first Language Festival at Florida
        Atlantic University, something that will get very good press, very good
        media for the school, and something that is going to take me more than 100
        hours of organizational work. Furthermore, this last year, I paid research
        trips to the Highlander Folk School, and Chautauqua, all out of my own
        pocket. The Heritage Lecture which I was invited to give at Chautauqua
        was very well received, and I worked on plans with the archive’s director
        there to do further research.
        Why did I get a scholarship last year, when I had only one class under my
        belt, with one grade of A, and when I had only one peer-reviewed article
        accepted for publication (the article about adult learner motivations and the
        historical Chautauqua), and this year when I desperately needed the money
        to repair my air conditioner, I did not get any secondary scholarship?
        Where are the support services for doctoral students? Where is the person
        who approves and gives out the funds? What are the criteria? Is there any
        human contact here? No one to ask a question? No one to reach out to a
        very sincere and dedicated doctoral student, who has come here to help
        make the lives of the oldest old a little better? How can I go from one grade
        of A in one class, to 11 grades of A (no A minuses) in ALL classes, and then
        see that little financial help of the secondary scholarship disappear? Four
        days of volunteer work for the University, plus an additional, with the
        Language Festival, dozen other days, at least. Three trips that I paid for
        myself to Chautauqua, to the Highlander Folk School, and yet one more
        which, I think, would impress anyone in the field of Adult Education. And
        why did I have the help of the department, and financial help with that
        small scholarship LAST year, when I had only one peer-reviewed
        publication for acceptance, and now I have FIVE peer-reviewed
        publications accepted. Is this some kind of academia in reverse?
        The Ugly
        In the Mel Brooks movie Robin Hood Men in Tights, the messenger arrives
        almost in extremis to the foot of the throne of the famous King John, and he
        tells the flagitious monarch that he has some bad news. The king, who has
        already had a very hard day, informs the messenger that he does not want to
        hear any bad tidings, but it be so necessary, that he give the report in a
        funny way. So be it. Think of the The Ministry of Silly Walks, if you wish,
        when you read the following.
        First, some starter background: Sometime last year a number of anonymous
        emails were received at FAU, emails that I personally have never received,
        but that apparently ruffled the feathers of some administrators. With a
        Casablanca like “Round up the usual suspects,” an investigation, and what
        became a veritable vendetta, began. This time instead of a cherchez la
        femme or get the guy with the black hat, or it must be Dreyfus, we were
        treated to an administrative “It must be Dr. Victor C.X. Wang because he is
        Chinese, an outsider, an absent-minded professor with few American social
        skills, an FAU neophyte, and is politically totally disconnected and does not
        have a clue about what really happens in the petrified forest of
        administration where secrets of an inbred hierarchy rustle among the
        primeval pines of bureaucratic tradition.” Now, of course, I have made part
        of this up, but not all! Since, anyone sufficiently well versed in American
        law knows that you cannot prosecute someone against whom you cannot
        find any evidence that he or she did this or that, those with ruffled feathers
        in The Ministry of Silly Walks came up with a creative ruse: Let’s go
        fishing in the private emails of Dr. Wang. Surely we will find a smoking
        gun. This guy does not have our cunning; he will surely slip up and write
        something that will frame him. Well, a few choice lines were discovered
        (lines that could have come from anybody’s emails, if we sort through the
        thousands that we, and that means me, you, and every Tom, Dick and Harry
        have all sent over the years.)
        Shameful thoughts, not worthy of educational leaders. Leaders?
        The smoking gun from the shamefully snooped private emails of a tenured
        professor were found. IN APRIL if I am correct. Seek and you shall find,
        so says the New Testament, but with a radically opposite meaning. And
        now, with a wonderful Soviet-like guilt by association, anyone connected
        with Dr. Wang started to find some rough sailing. It is wrong to try to
        create a climate of academic mobbing against Dr. Wang and his family. It is
        bizarre and shameful and equally wrong to tell a very sincere, hard-working
        graduate student that IN APRIL IF YOU DON’T LIKE IT HERE WHY
        DON’T YOU LEAVE. Leave? I have lived a long life, a good life, and I
        have never seen a professor so wrongly accused, nor, as an administrator,
        have I ever seen department heads actually try to make like so difficult for
        students who try to respect everyone the school and the department.
        If no one steps forward to prevent it, the unfair, racist (this type of
        retribution against Dr. Wang would NEVER occur to a white
        insider, and this I can be demonstrated from intercultural research)
        suspension of Dr. Wang to start on December 17th, The Ministry of Silly
        Walks will need to be ready, like the Monty Python films, to own up to
        what they have done and are doing.
        For my part, with the Educational Leadership Department in a state of
        ethical and organizational shambles, at the end of my second year, I would
        like to withdraw from the program. Michael Moore would say, “Shame on
        you, Mr. Bush.” And I would like to say, “Shame on you who call
        yourselves educators and who try to punish, and silence and manipulate
        those who are just trying to become mature, and ethical, adult educators.
        Dennis Keefe,
        PhD Student
        Presidential Scholar
        Department of Educational Leadership
        Adult and Community Education
        Florida Atlantic University

      • V Justin says:

        Substantial evidence means “more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971). [w]here there is such relevant evidence as reasonable minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion even if it is possible to draw two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence. Landes v. Royal, 833 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987).’Substantial’ evidence is not synonymous with ‘any’ evidence. To constitute sufficient substantiality to support the verdict, the evidence must be ‘reasonable in nature, credible, and of solid value; it must actually be “substantial” proof of the essentials which the law requires in a particular case.’ (Estate of Teed (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 638, 644; [citations].)” (Kruse v. Bank of America (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 38, 51-52.) “It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. ” (Edison Co. v. Labor Board (1938) 305 U.S. 197, 229 [83 L.Ed. 126, 140, 59 S.Ct. 206].) “‘Improbable conclusions drawn in favor of a party litigant through the sanction of a jury’s verdict will not be sustained where testimony is at variance with physical facts and repugnance is material and self evident.'” (Estate of Teed (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 638, 644, quoting from an Arkansas case.)
        “While substantial evidence may consist of inferences, such inferences must be ‘a product of logic and reason’ and ‘must rest on the evidence’ ; inferences that are the result of mere speculation or conjecture cannot support a finding .” (Kuhn v. Department of General Services (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1627, 1633.)

    • Retaliation for Protected EEO Activity is Unlawful

      Equal employment opportunity (EEO) statutes that prohibit federal agencies, including the Department of Labor, from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as wage differences between men and women performing substantially equal work, also prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding. As a result, an agency may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise take adverse action against an employee or applicant for employment for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination.

      What activity is protected by the prohibition against retaliation?

      An individual engages in protected activity when s/he: (1) opposes a practice s/he considers to be discriminatory; (2) participates in an employment discrimination proceeding; or (3) engages in other protected activity.

      Opposing Discrimination: Opposing a discriminatory practice consists of communicating to the agency a reasonable, good-faith belief that the agency is engaging in prohibited discrimination. Examples of opposition include complaining to anyone about alleged discrimination against oneself or others; threatening to file a complaint alleging discrimination; picketing in opposition to discrimination; or refusing to obey an order reasonably believed to be discriminatory. Examples of employee activities that are not protected as opposition include actions that interfere with job performance so as to render the employee ineffective or unlawful activities such as acts or threats of violence.

      Participating in an employment discrimination proceeding: Participation means taking part in an employment discrimination proceeding. Participation is protected activity even if the proceeding involved claims that ultimately were found to be invalid. Examples of participation include filing a charge of employment discrimination; cooperating with an internal investigation of alleged discriminatory practices; or serving as a witness in an EEO investigation or litigation.

      Other Protected Activity: Additional protected activity includes requests for an accommodation based on disability or religion.

      Which individuals are covered by this protection?

      Covered individuals are persons who have requested accommodations, opposed unlawful practices, or participated in proceedings related to employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Protections are also extended to individuals based on sexual orientation and parental status pursuant to Executive Order and Department of Labor policy. Individuals who have a close association with someone who has engaged in such protected activity also are covered individuals. For example, it is illegal to take adverse action against an employee because his spouse participated in employment discrimination proceedings. Individuals who have brought attention to violations of law other than employment discrimination are not covered individuals for purposes of anti-discrimination retaliation laws. Individuals may have recourse under the anti-retaliation provisions of those other laws, but not under the laws enforced through the federal sector EEO process. For example, “whistleblowers” who raise ethical, financial, or other concerns unrelated to employment discrimination are not protected by laws applicable to federal employees and applicants.

      What is an adverse action prohibited by EEO statutes, regulations and/or policies?

      An adverse action is an action taken to penalize someone for or prevent someone from opposing a discriminatory employment practice, participating in an employment discrimination proceeding, or requesting an accommodation based on disability or religion. Such an action could form the basis of a new EEO complaint. Examples of adverse actions include: (1) denial of promotion; (2) non-selection/refusal to hire; (3) denial of job benefits; (4) demotion; (5) suspension; (6) discharge; (7) threats; (8) reprimands; (9) negative evaluations; (10) harassment; or (11) other adverse treatment that is likely to deter reasonable people from pursuing their rights.

    • G. Lotaya says:

      Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination Questions And Answers
      Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws
      I. What Are the Federal Laws Prohibiting Job Discrimination?
      • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
      • the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
      The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces all of these laws. EEOC also provides oversight and coordination of all federal equal employment opportunity regulations, practices, and policies.
      II. What Discriminatory Practices Are Prohibited by These Laws? Under Title VII, the ADA, GINA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:
      • hiring and firing;
      • compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
      • transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
      • job advertisements;
      • recruitment;
      • testing;
      • use of company facilities;
      • training and apprenticeship programs;
      • fringe benefits;
      • pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
      • other terms and conditions of employment.
      Discriminatory practices under these laws also include:
      • harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, genetic information, or age;
      • retaliation against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in an investigation, or opposing discriminatory practices;
      • employment decisions based on stereotypes or assumptions about the abilities, traits, or performance of individuals of a certain sex, race, age, religion, or ethnic group, or individuals with disabilities, or based on myths or assumptions about an individual’s genetic information; and
      • denying employment opportunities to a person because of marriage to, or association with, an individual of a particular race, religion, national origin, or an individual with a disability. Title VII also prohibits discrimination because of participation in schools or places of worship associated with a particular racial, ethnic, or religious group.
      Employers are required to post notices to all employees advising them of their rights under the laws EEOC enforces and their right to be free from retaliation. Such notices must be accessible, as needed, to persons with visual or other disabilities that affect reading.
      III. What Other Practices Are Discriminatory Under These Laws?
      Title VII
      Title VII prohibits not only intentional discrimination, but also practices that have the effect of discriminating against individuals because of their race, color, national origin, religion, or sex.
      National Origin Discrimination
      • It is illegal to discriminate against an individual because of birthplace, ancestry, culture, or linguistic characteristics common to a specific ethnic group.
      • A rule requiring that employees speak only English on the job may violate Title VII unless an employer shows that the requirement is necessary for conducting business. If the employer believes such a rule is necessary, employees must be informed when English is required and the consequences for violating the rule.
      Equal Pay Act
      The EPA prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in the payment of wages or benefits, where men and women perform work of similar skill, effort, and responsibility for the same employer under similar working conditions.
      Note that:
      • Employers may not reduce wages of either sex to equalize pay between men and women.
      • A violation of the EPA may occur where a different wage was/is paid to a person who worked in the same job before or after an employee of the opposite sex.
      • A violation may also occur where a labor union causes the employer to violate the law.
      The Civil Rights Act of 1991
      The Civil Rights Act of 1991 made major changes in the federal laws against employment discrimination enforced by EEOC. Enacted in part to reverse several Supreme Court decisions that limited the rights of persons protected by these laws, the Act also provides additional protections. The Act authorizes compensatory and punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination, and provides for obtaining attorneys’ fees and the possibility of jury trials. It also directs the EEOC to expand its technical assistance and outreach activities.
      Employers And Other Entities Covered By EEO Laws
      IV. Which Employers and Other Entities Are Covered by These Laws?
      Title VII, the ADA, and GINA cover all private employers, state and local governments, and education institutions that employ 15 or more individuals. These laws also cover private and public employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor management committees controlling apprenticeship and training.
      The ADEA covers all private employers with 20 or more employees, state and local governments (including school districts), employment agencies and labor organizations.
      The EPA covers all employers who are covered by the Federal Wage and Hour Law (the Fair Labor Standards Act). Virtually all employers are subject to the provisions of this Act.
      Title VII, the ADEA, GINA, and the EPA also cover the federal government. In addition, the federal government is covered by Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which incorporate the requirements of the ADA. However, different procedures are used for processing complaints of federal discrimination. For more information on how to file a complaint of federal discrimination, contact the EEO office of the federal agency where the alleged discrimination occurred.
      The CSRA (not enforced by EEOC) covers most federal agency employees except employees of a government corporation, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and as determined by the President, any executive agency or unit thereof, the principal function of which is the conduct of
      XIII. What Remedies Are Available When Discrimination Is Found?
      The “relief” or remedies available for employment discrimination, whether caused by intentional acts or by practices that have a discriminatory effect, may include:
      • back pay,
      • hiring,
      • promotion,
      • reinstatement,
      • front pay,
      • reasonable accommodation, or
      • other actions that will make an individual “whole” (in the condition s/he would have been but for the discrimination).
      Remedies also may include payment of:
      • attorneys’ fees,
      • expert witness fees, and
      • court costs.
      Under most EEOC-enforced laws, compensatory and punitive damages also may be available where intentional discrimination is found. Damages may be available to compensate for actual monetary losses, for future monetary losses, and for mental anguish and inconvenience. Punitive damages also may be available if an employer acted with malice or reckless indifference. Punitive damages are not available against the federal, state or local governments.
      In cases concerning reasonable accommodation under the ADA, compensatory or punitive damages may not be awarded to the charging party if an employer can demonstrate that “good faith” efforts were made to provide reasonable accommodation.
      An employer may be required to post notices to all employees addressing the violations of a specific charge and advising them of their rights under the laws EEOC enforces and their right to be free from retaliation. Such notices must be accessible, as needed, to persons with visual or other disabilities that affect reading.
      The employer also may be required to take corrective or preventive actions to cure the source of the identified discrimination and minimize the chance of its recurrence, as well as discontinue the specific discriminatory practices involved in the case.
      The Commission
      XIV. What Is EEOC and How Does It Operate?
      EEOC is an independent federal agency originally created by Congress in 1964 to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Commission is composed of five Commissioners and a General Counsel appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Commissioners are appointed for five-year staggered terms; the General Counsel’s term is four years. The President designates a Chair and a Vice-Chair. The Chair is the chief executive officer of the Commission. The Commission has authority to establish equal employment policy and to approve litigation. The General Counsel is responsible for conducting litigation.
      EEOC carries out its enforcement, education and technical assistance activities through 53 field offices serving every part of the nation.

    • I. Bogosch says:

      Wrongful dismissal, also called wrongful termination or wrongful discharge, is a legal phrase, describing a situation in which an employee’s contract of employment has been terminated by the employer if the termination breaches one or more terms of the contract of employment, or a statute provision in employment law. It follows that the scope for wrongful dismissal varies according to the terms of the employment contract, and varies by jurisdiction. The absence of a formal contract of employment does not preclude wrongful dismissal in jurisdictions in which a de facto contract is taken to exist by virtue of the employment relationship. Terms of such a contract may include obligations and rights outlined in an employee handbook. Being terminated for any of the items listed below may constitute wrongful termination:
      • Discrimination: The employer cannot terminate employment because the employee is a certain race, nationality, religion, sex, age, or (in some jurisdictions) sexual orientation.
      • Retaliation: An employer cannot fire an employee because the employee filed a claim of discrimination or is participating in an investigation for discrimination. In the US, this “retaliation” is forbidden under civil rights law.
      • Employee’s refusal to commit an illegal act: An employer is not permitted to fire an employee because the employee refuses to commit an act that is illegal.
      • Employer is not following own termination procedures: Often, the employee handbook or company policy outlines a procedure that must be followed before an employee is terminated. If the employer fires an employee without following this procedure, the employee may have a claim for wrongful termination.
      Wrongful dismissal will tend to arise first as a claim by the employee so dismissed. Many jurisdictions provide tribunals or courts which will hear actions for wrongful dismissal. A proven wrongful dismissal will tend to lead to two main remedies: reinstatement of the dismissed employee and/or monetary compensation for the wrongfully dismissed.

      Retaliation for Protected EEO Activity is Unlawful

      Equal employment opportunity (EEO) statutes that prohibit federal agencies, including the Department of Labor, from discriminating against employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, and genetic information, as well as wage differences between men and women performing substantially equal work, also prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding. As a result, an agency may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise take adverse action against an employee or applicant for employment for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination.

      What activity is protected by the prohibition against retaliation?

      An individual engages in protected activity when s/he: (1) opposes a practice s/he considers to be discriminatory; (2) participates in an employment discrimination proceeding; or (3) engages in other protected activity.

      Opposing Discrimination: Opposing a discriminatory practice consists of communicating to the agency a reasonable, good-faith belief that the agency is engaging in prohibited discrimination. Examples of opposition include complaining to anyone about alleged discrimination against oneself or others; threatening to file a complaint alleging discrimination; picketing in opposition to discrimination; or refusing to obey an order reasonably believed to be discriminatory. Examples of employee activities that are not protected as opposition include actions that interfere with job performance so as to render the employee ineffective or unlawful activities such as acts or threats of violence.

      Participating in an employment discrimination proceeding: Participation means taking part in an employment discrimination proceeding. Participation is protected activity even if the proceeding involved claims that ultimately were found to be invalid. Examples of participation include filing a charge of employment discrimination; cooperating with an internal investigation of alleged discriminatory practices; or serving as a witness in an EEO investigation or litigation.

      Other Protected Activity: Additional protected activity includes requests for an accommodation based on disability or religion.

      Which individuals are covered by this protection?

      Covered individuals are persons who have requested accommodations, opposed unlawful practices, or participated in proceedings related to employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Protections are also extended to individuals based on sexual orientation and parental status pursuant to Executive Order and Department of Labor policy. Individuals who have a close association with someone who has engaged in such protected activity also are covered individuals. For example, it is illegal to take adverse action against an employee because his spouse participated in employment discrimination proceedings. Individuals who have brought attention to violations of law other than employment discrimination are not covered individuals for purposes of anti-discrimination retaliation laws. Individuals may have recourse under the anti-retaliation provisions of those other laws, but not under the laws enforced through the federal sector EEO process. For example, “whistleblowers” who raise ethical, financial, or other concerns unrelated to employment discrimination are not protected by laws applicable to federal employees and applicants.

      What is an adverse action prohibited by EEO statutes, regulations and/or policies?

      An adverse action is an action taken to penalize someone for or prevent someone from opposing a discriminatory employment practice, participating in an employment discrimination proceeding, or requesting an accommodation based on disability or religion. Such an action could form the basis of a new EEO complaint. Examples of adverse actions include: (1) denial of promotion; (2) non-selection/refusal to hire; (3) denial of job benefits; (4) demotion; (5) suspension; (6) discharge; (7) threats; (8) reprimands; (9) negative evaluations; (10) harassment; or (11) other adverse treatment that is likely to deter reasonable people from pursuing their rights.

    • M. Haught says:

      Remedies For Employment Discrimination–Title VII, Federal Law:

      Whenever discrimination is found, the goal of the law is to put the victim of discrimination in the same position (or nearly the same) that he or she would have been if the discrimination had never occurred.

      The types of relief will depend upon the discriminatory action and the effect it had on the victim. For example, if someone is not selected for a job or a promotion because of discrimination, the remedy may include placement in the job and/or back pay and benefits the person would have received.

      The employer also will be required to stop any discriminatory practices and take steps to prevent discrimination in the future.

      A victim of discrimination also may be able to recover attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, and court costs.
      Remedies May Include Compensatory & Punitive Damages

      Compensatory and punitive damages may be awarded in cases involving intentional discrimination based on a person’s race, color, national origin, sex (including pregnancy, gender identity, and sexual orientation), religion, disability, or genetic information.

      Compensatory damages pay victims for out-of-pocket expenses caused by the discrimination (such as costs associated with a job search or medical expenses) and compensate them for any emotional harm suffered (such as mental anguish, inconvenience, or loss of enjoyment of life).

      Punitive damages may be awarded to punish an employer who has committed an especially malicious or reckless act of discrimination.

    • Meredith says:

      I keep telling my friends, “if Robert Shockley quit being the chair, everyone in the department would behave like a real adult employee!”
      He is coercive and a notorious dictator. In 2003, he was demoted from an associate dean’s position; no departments wanted him. A former Dean simply installed him in this department as a parasite…
      He indirectly “fired” Dr. Russo for telling the truth about her articles (co-opted by Ira Bogotch, Daniel and Maruhu without her consent). He kicked me out of my 3.5 million grant program… Yikes!

      • Daniel Agui says:

        SHAME on you, Meredith Mountford, students at FAU call her a “witch!” She wanted the title, Vice UFF President because she does not want Robert Shockley to fire her due to her consistent “poor” SPOT by FAU students! It was Meredith who told everybody about Frankie’s $110,000 salary and she used the term “obscene” because her husband, a department chair, saw Frankie’s contract from the Dean’s Office. She should have applied for the full professor, but she knows she is way unqualified and Shockley, Pisapia and Bogotch will shoot her down at the department level.
        One wonders how Shockley writes her annual evaluations, giving her A+ every year so that she would vote for his chair position?
        Kelly should consider firing this witch alongside Shockley!

      • C. Jackson says:

        Dr. Meredith Mountford (Educational Leadership and Research Methodology), why not wash out this parasite, Dr. Robert Shockley and his protectors from FAU? You have been trying to do this for over a decade and now you are UFF Vice President. Use your power to wash him out. Do not use the power to cover your OWN ASS, U witch!

    • J. Pisapa says:

      Robert Shockley operates The Department of Educational Leadership & Research Methodology like a sex-fueled, Old Boy’s Club, steeped in intimidation (discrimination and retaliation), indecency, and misogyny, period! He allows an ongoing “Adultery” between 2 senior faculty for 20 years; how about himself, a clean old boy? FAU’s counsel should interview some former students and faculty to dig out more scandals directly related to his CRAPPY LEADERSHIP! What an irony that he works in this holy place as department head, defacto parasite, disgusting!

    • Jeff Bogotch says:

      In general, employers will do almost anything to avoid taking an employment discrimination case to trial, not only to avoid the time and money that it costs, but also to avoid the negative publicity, and to take the factor of unpredictable jury awards out of the equation.
      Accordingly, employers typically do everything they can to have these cases dismissed as soon as possible. Failing that, they typically offer modest settlements, most of which are accepted by the plaintiffs. However, according to a recent article in the ABA Journal, these settlements tend to be smaller than most people might expect.
      Naturally, I don’t want the court to dig out the facts of my stealing articles from Dr. Marrianne Russo. I removed her name and put my own name on her articles and her articles help Dan get tenure and promotion.

    • M. R. says:

      Dear Dr. Bogotch,

      I had always respected you as a professor of social justice, and you were my dissertation chair, however, you have chosen to be a person who is very far from an applied version of social justice. It is my professional opinion that you have been complicit in supporting Daniel Reyes-Guerra, an assistant professor, in the Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology, who has been unethical in taking my scholarly work. You have known the truth about the authorship of the writing. You both bullied me, with Dr. Shockley’s knowledge and blessing, and then removed me as first author of a tier one journal, which was published without my signage and approval. I was academically mobbed. In fact, recently, Dr. Shockley told me that the reason I was really put on the PROPEL grant to work with Daniel was, in the end, to get him tenure by writing publishable journal articles. How appalling. You also knew about two other pieces of writing that were written by me, and you allowed my work to be co-opted, allowing Daniel Reyes-Guerra to be first author for the sheer reason of using me and my work so he could get tenure. I reflected upon what Dr. Shockley told me in his office and came to the realization that you lied about my scholarship, which gave Dr. Shockley an opening to allow Daniel Reyes-Guerra to slander me openly within a departmental meeting, calling me “aggressive,” which can be coded as pure sexism. Professors of social justice and department heads should not lie about their “subordinate” colleagues; they should have real evaluation to expose the truth. I was told by Dr. Shockley to stay quiet and submissive about this matter, and not upset the apple cart. Well, as a woman, I guess, I should stay quiet and be submissive, according to my superiors? In fact, I was threatened by Dr. Shockley not to expose this injustice, or render any kind of opinion, or I would lose my job. Furthermore, regarding that research paper just published in the tier one journal, it was my writing, and my two computers have records to show that I was the majority and initial author. Daniel Reyes-Guerra, you, and Dr. Vasquez were editors only adding very small minutiae to qualify as “co-authors.” However, the first authorship should have been mine and you hijacked it so Daniel Reyes-Guerra could use my talents to attain tenure. Hypocritically, Daniel Reyes-Guerra told everyone that he was the first author, and that he did the bulk of the work. What a sham! Is it also true that Daniel Reyes-Guerra absconded the $3.5 million grant program, PROPEL, from Dr. Meredith Mountford, and you and Dr. Shockley knew of this effort as well? As an aside, I was also told that my age was discussed at this particular meeting. Isn’t this age discrimination? There are witnesses to all of this. What kind of collegiality and academic honesty do you and Daniel Reyes-Guerra embody? By any reputable university standard in the United States, Daniel Reyes-Guerra’s violation of scholarship should cause him to be removed from the academic circle. As a professor of social justice, you should know better than this! His behavior was more than “plagiarism”. What is the Department’s number one value in its mission statement? Is it ethics? Ira, you should know better than to perpetuate this fraud on FAU faculty! It is my recommendation you resign as the Department’s P&T College Rep due to this kind of abusive behavior. Stop beautifying such as an unethical person who even said he graduated with a Ph. D. from Cornell on an AERA sig ballot. Can you just give an assistant professor that has done no heavy lifting a pass to tenure? We have some shameless folks here in the Department, inclusive of professors that stalk other professors, of which I have encountered first hand, with a department chair at the helm, who is held unaccountable. Junior faculty Daniel Reyes-Guerra has simply not earned his scholarship, abetted with your assistance and the department chair’s sanctification. I have had a stellar 18-year record as an adjunct and visiting assistant professor, and this entire situation is ridiculous. It is ironic and quite sad that this educational leadership department does not live by its own living and core values. The University will find itself lucky if I do not seek legal remedy.

      • What an ugly/filthy Department under the Toxic Leadership of Shockley and Bogotch! You know in FL, you have 4 years to sue these unethical people. This is your legal right. Recently, an former adjunct professor sued the department of engineering at FAU; FAU taught his materials without his permission. The court has ordered this case to mediation.

      • Dr. R.
        You have to sue them at Federal Court. Their act was “academic misconduct”, which should suffice to get them fired. The court will force FAU to investigate this gross misconduct. A secretary told us Shockley was almost replaced by the Provost Office’s order. Bristor firmly protected him…
        I would sue them for sure. Suing them would not cost you anything.

    • A. J. says:

      It is the most insane thing that FAU officials, Robert Shockley, Michel Hawkins, Valerie Bristor, Valerie Bryan all with a PHD as eminent scholars or known researchers, would consider “speculation and conjecture” as evidence against this protected Dr. Wang. Now that their stated reason to fire this minority tenured faculty is false, the real motive is discrimination plus retaliation. This should be such an easy victory for the plaintiff.
      One would say how “smart” these FAU officials are, LOL! Idiocy upon idiocy…I am glad I am retired.

    • S Subla says:

      Ira Bogotch and Bob Shockley seem to be SO jealous of our professor’s accomplishments, especially his exceptional teaching and scholarship. The professor’s popularity among FAU students is paramount. These jealous folks are simply thugs and parasites. FAU is wasting resources to keep these older folks.

    • Meredith M. says:

      7 Employer Actions that Can Increase Likelihood of a Lawsuit
      By Joan Farrell
      Legal Editor
      For a Limited Time receive a FREE HR Report “Top 10 Strategic HR Trends for the New Era.” This exclusive special report highlights recent changes in the HR profession, strategies for branding and recruiting, trends in performance management, tips for keeping high-potential employees engaged, and advice for using diversity and inclusion as a business strategy. It’s a must-have resource for all HR professionals.
      There are steps employers can take to make them less vulnerable to lawsuits brought by employees or former employees; and if they are sued, there are things they can do to avoid making a bad situation worse.
      Speaking at SHRM’s 2008 Annual Conference, Whitney Warner, an attorney with the firm of Moody & Warner, PC, said some actions make employers more likely targets for a lawsuit, including:
      • Not giving a reason for employment termination. “Most employees believe they’re stars,” said Warner, and if the employer doesn’t give an explanation when it terminates employment, employees will try to figure out why they were terminated and will assume the reason was discriminatory.
      • Bad timing. If an employer takes adverse action shortly after an employee has made an internal complaint, the employer is vulnerable to a claim of retaliation. Warner suggested that HR professionals should ask managers if an employee has made a formal or informal internal complaint within the past few months before approving an employment action that might have a negative impact on the employee.
      • Superficial internal investigations. “Employees expect you to start the investigation the same day,” Warner told attendees, and while a same-day start may not be necessary, starting an investigation within a day or two shows that the employer cares about the complaint, which may help in avoiding punitive damages if a lawsuit is brought. During a workplace investigation, employers should be sure to interview relevant witnesses, even if the complaining employee says no one witnessed the alleged incident. For example, employers can ask the employee’s co-workers if there have been incidents in the department that made any of the employees uncomfortable. Employers should also take corrective action if needed, and document the investigation.
      • Not providing a thorough response to an EEOC charge. Employers that learn about an employee’s allegations for the first time through an EEOC charge should treat the charge like an internal complaint, said Warner. They should conduct a prompt and thorough investigation, even if some of the employees named in the complaint have since left the company. Employers should be sure to refute the allegations of discrimination in their response and clearly state their position that the employer did not violate the law. Although emotions can run high in these situations, Warner cautioned employers not to insult the employee ¬ or worse the EEOC ¬ in the response because that kind of evidence may work against the employer if the charge becomes a lawsuit.
      • Failing to follow its own policies. Warner described a case in which an employer had some of the best policies and training programs on investigating workplace conduct and harassment. Nonetheless, a manager failed to investigate a harassment complaint and the employer didn’t take corrective action against the manager when it discovered the failure. These kinds of actions can appear to a jury as “utter indifference” on the part of the employer and consequently lead to an award of punitive damages.
      • Firing an employee for bad performance when the employee’s records show good evaluations. Employers also invite trouble when an employee receives a raise or bonus and is then fired for bad performance. Warner suggested that employers take poorly performing employees out of the merit pool when calculating raises and bonuses. Not surprisingly, it also creates problems for employers when an employee who has been fired for bad performance is given a glowing recommendation.
      • Criticizing an employee for events that pre-date a positive review. Employers should focus performance reviews on the time period covered by the review. If an employee receives a great performance review in January and is then placed on a performance improvement plan in March because of events that occurred the previous December, it may look to a jury like the employer was fabricating performance problems to cover up the real reason it’s taking adverse action against the employee. If the employee filed an internal complaint between the two reviews, the March review will look like retaliation.
      After a lawsuit is filed, employers can make the situation even worse by being unprepared for depositions, “losing” documents or coming up with “new” documents that don’t bear the employee’s signature, being overly aggressive at settlement meetings which can cement the employee’s resolve to see the lawsuit through, and thinking that the response, “I don’t remember” is a better answer than giving the facts. The danger with “I don’t remember” responses, said Warner, is that they leave the employee’s version of the facts unchallenged.
      There are some things employers can do to avoid being targeted for a lawsuit:
      • Discipline the manager who failed to report a complaint of harassment or took no action to stop inappropriate conduct in the workplace.
      • Keep good records of complaints, follow-up meetings, specific examples of an employee’s performance problems, e-mails or other documents that show an employee’s poor attitude or mistakes.
      • Be candid and empathetic with the employee if the situation was mishandled; if his or her story is corroborated, consider compensating the employee with time off, counseling, or repayment of lost wages–if the employee refuses these offers, it will help the employer’s case during litigation.
      • Respond to complaints quickly, take mitigating steps if necessary, keep an open mind during the investigation, and document the process.
      Although it may be impossible to avoid litigation altogether, employers may be able to reduce the number of lawsuits brought against them and avoid some of the costlier settlements or punitive damages by implementing some of these steps.

    • W. Miller says:

      According to court docket, this case was “court ordered” into mediation August 10, 2016. It means defendants have erred and engaged in intentional discrimination with malice against this protected minority. Defendants FAU have no hard evidence; opinions would not stand in court and will be thrown out of court. I am a retired Dean from FAU. Over the years, FAU has not learned a lesson and the university keeps hiring “unqualified/unethical” administrators at all levels.

    • J. Hirby says:

      What Percentage of Lawsuits Settle Before Trial? What Are Some Statistics on Personal Injury Settlements?
      Written by James Hirby and Fact Checked by The Law Dictionary Staff

      If you’re on either side of a pending lawsuit, you may be nervous about the prospect of going to trial. If you’re like most Americans, you’ve probably never been directly involved in the trial process. Although it’s likely that you’ve seen stylized media portrayals of sleazy trial lawyers, forceful judges and rigid courtroom protocols, you may not know what to expect once you actually step through the double doors and enter your trial court. In fact, you might not even be aware that most modern courtrooms lack double doors.
      Unless you’re involved in a complex case with no clear-cut “winner” or “loser,” your nervousness may be misplaced. Prior to the commencement of the trial process, the vast majority of personal injury and product liability lawsuits are settled out of court. Although reliable median settlement figures are not available due to a lack of clear reporting standards, it’s likely that most pre-trial settlement amounts are comparable to the reported “value” of the corresponding lawsuit. In a financial sense, settlements tend to favor plaintiffs over defendants. Of course, settling a case out of court may protect the reputation and dignity of a defendant. In this regard, it can be said that both plaintiffs and defendants benefit from pre-trial settlements.
      According to the most recently-available statistics, about 95 percent of pending lawsuits end in a pre-trial settlement. This means that just one in 20 personal injury cases is resolved in a court of law by a judge or jury. It also means that planning for a pre-trial settlement is a crucial component of any sound legal strategy. In fact, many seasoned personal injury plaintiffs use the bulk of the pre-trial preparation period to build a case that entices their opponents into settling for a favorable sum. If you would prefer to settle your case before trial, be sure to let your attorney know of your desire in a timely fashion.
      It appears that personal injury trials favor the plaintiff: According to recent statistics, over 90 percent of cases that go to trial end in victory for the individual who brought the suit. This suggests that pre-trial settlements may be in the best interest of defendants who lack strong evidence to defend themselves against the charges that they face. In straightforward personal injury cases, the outcome of a trial can hinge on the testimony of a single key witness or the examination of certain pertinent records.

      Law Dictionary: What Percentage of Lawsuits Settle Before Trial? What Are Some Statistics on Personal Injury Settlements?

    • John P. says:

      FAU is subject to frequent lawsuits due to the fact the university hires many wrongdoers/racists including Dr. Robert Shockley and his protectors. All litigants should set a legal precedent and make an impact on broader society or send a public message to these racists and real social “parasites”.

    • Andrea Spear says:

      I, Andrea, an FAU graduate student, affirms the “criminal conduct” of Dr. Robert Shockley who had been a “peeping Tom” by sending undergraduate student technicians to victim, Dr. Wang’s class in Spring 2016, had been collecting any “negative” feedback about Dr. Wang’s course and his exceptional teaching. Perpetrator, predator, Robert Shockley’s criminal conduct was condoned by FAU higher up leaders. His illegal surveillance of Dr. Wang’s one class was tacitly supported by Dr. Valerie C. Bryan who once condemned her boss for “bastardizing” her ACE curriculum. Senior FAU officials “used Shockley’s falsified information to have crushed Dr. Wang’s tenured career through an endless stream of lewd, offensive, discriminatory and retaliatory channel without affording the due process of law guaranteed by FAU handbook and U.S. Constitution” Former colleagues and current PHD students are willing to testify in the court room because they too, were mistreated by Robert Shockley and Valerie C. Bryan who seem to be wolves in sheep’s clothing. Dr. Russo and Presidential Scholar Dennis Keefe have exposed their “academic fraud, research misconduct, ongoing discrimination and seeming adultery” to FAU higher up leaders who did not have any slight interest in further investigating these perennial issues that have plagued FAU campuses for years. Former FAU President Saunders wanted to dissolve ACE dwindling program with less than 25 students. Small wonder ACE faculty dwindled from 13 full time professors to only one Queen Bee who happens to be such a biased practitioner!

  2. Dennis Keefe says:

    Dear President Kelly, Provost Perry, Dr. Shockley, Professors, Selected Graduate Students,

    (Attachments: Dr. Henschke’s letter; and, this letter in pdf-format).

    The festering scandal involving the sudden removal of Dr. Victor C.X. Wang, in the fourth week of his summer courses some 30 days ago, has now reached the attention of a key national leader in the field of Adult Education. This ominous development portends what may be a descent down the dark side of both academic and public opinion for our school and our students. Of note, the letter from Dr. John Henschke (attached below), former president of the AAACE, American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, and past chair and current member of the board of the International Adult Educators Hall of Fame, is particularly damning of the machinations and seeming corruption within the Department of Educational Leadership of FAU. Machiavellian moves mediated by just one, two or three “scholar” administrators, yet countenanced by too many others at low, middle and upper levels of our university management system.

    This purulent-yellow scandal is now deepening as it seeps from inside the walls of FAU into the domain of academia nationwide. Serious scholars in Florida and elsewhere will be asking questions: Why would an educational leadership department fire a tenured professor? Why would it fire this professor in middle of a course, weeks after the semester started? Why would the head of any reputable department remove its, by far, most-published professor? Why would any school ever try to get rid of the editor of an academic journal – few in the FAU Department of Education published more than one peer-reviewed article last year, let alone edit an educational journal! And why would FAU NOT be completely satisfied with a teacher who consistently gets above, and sometimes well-above average ratings from students? The man can publish; the man can teach and inspire. What more does any university big or small want from its loyal faculty? Please know that the very last student survey of Dr. Wang’s semester course, just a few weeks ago, placed him at the top of the entire department – a perfect rating! And finally, while most good universities are trying to hire qualified international professors, why would FAU give the pink slip to their eminent Chinese professor of education? Nothing that has happened to this professor, who is the only breadwinner in a family of four, makes moral or logical sense. These academic contradictions are so egregious that they almost demand a J’accuse from a Zola or a Voltaire.

    Something very unusual is surreptitiously taking place in one dark and dirty corner of FAU, and it is very ugly. I do not know exactly what the cause is, but it needs to be investigated and soon. When adjuncts without publishing records are favored over well-versed scholars, something is awry. Some of us are beginning to suspect nepotism, favoritism and even hemophiliac hiring – well, whatever – the disease is deeply embedded under the veneer of respectable scholarship, concealed in someone’s cap and gown, a wolf in a sheepskin, perhaps. In addition, Adult and Community Education as well as other branches of Educational Leadership were already severely hampered because of its hiring of its own graduates, one after the other, to teach our graduate courses! We are starting to get a reputation of “a charter school,” “a correspondence course center,” “a phantom curriculum.” We are risking investigations by outside accrediting agencies. In the institution itself, we are not only ignoring the traditions of graduate education, we are violating the newly minted key strategic initiatives of Dr. Kelly and his team.

    The damning letter of Dr. Henschke needs to be taken very seriously. To some of us in the field, he is the Jimmy Carter of Adult Education: a good man, an honest man, a very experienced man who has held major leadership positions his entire life, including those of church minister, national president of AAACE (mentioned above), professor and scholar. His CV is some 72 pages long, chock full of peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations domestic and international, and academic experience in South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and, of course, in the United States at the University of Missouri, at Boston University, at Northern Baptist Theological Seminary: Masters in Divinity; Masters in Theology; Doctorate in Education; Studies in vocal music, instrumental music, counseling – a modern Renaissance man and a Humanist. He was a doctoral student of Malcolm Knowles, considered by some to be the leader in adult education. In the field of andragogy (Adult Education), to mention that you studied with Malcolm Knowles is like a linguist saying that he or she studied under Noam Chomsky, or a physicist with Richard Feynman, or an economist with Robert Reich. When Dr. Henschke speaks, the men and women in our field take heed. Dr. Henschke, eminently qualified, is trying to speak reason and humanity to our school FAU, now.

    More and more of us master and doctoral students are realizing that an organization that suddenly fires one of its top scholars, respected and appreciated by so many, is not an institution that is following its own precepts. In fact, it is an institution not worth the tuition and fees, nor the respect of honest men and women students and teachers. And in terms of our respect for scholarship and academic publishing, we are not far from the fallen, and the falling, “virtual universities”. In order that the programs here do not become more tainted than they already are, the reestablishment of honesty, academic excellence and service need to be reinstated, and the first ineluctable step for a rekindling of the academic life of the Department of Education is the rescinding of the cowardly order by Dr. Shockley to fire Dr. Wang. There is no better friend of academia and of FAU than Dr. Victor C.X. Wang (whose CV, by the way, encompasses over 50 pages). This Dr. Henschke knows; and with fear I say, this everyone in the field of Education and Adult Education will begin to hear about in coming months. We do not want the value of our PhD’s nor the reputation of FAU to suffer through the revelation of this scandal. The cure needs to be administered, and the obituary must not, at all costs, be published. For the love of humanity and spirituality, SAVE THIS DEPARTMENT.

    We demand amends, and an apology for the academic assassination of one of FAU’s leading teachers and scholars. We scholars demand an explanation for the indecent firing of a decent man. A South Florida university is not a North Korean institution of higher learning.

    Have we no decency? Dr. Shockley, You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, Sir? Family of four, a home to be lost, insurance canceled, a reputation to be blighted, a career and an academic life to be snuffed out – in secrecy. A statue of clay standing on a pedestal of ashes pointing a finger at an honest, hard-working man, beloved by his family, his students, and scholars the world over.

    With deepest respect for this Institution of Higher Learning, on this day July 13, 2016,

    Dennis Keefe
    Presidential Scholar
    Department of Educational Leadership, Adult and Community Education

  3. M Deede says:

    Some 100 current College of Education Faculty members accused Bristor and Shockley (his stooge, Bryan) of disrupting the collegial, close-knit culture of the school and turning it into an environment of fear and intimidation, discrimination and retaliation, where the back-stabbing politics were so thick that few would dare challenge the dean and the incumbent chair, demoted from associate dean’s position in 2003. Those current and former employees had unsuccessfully urged the university via UFF administrator’s survey (more than two years consecutively) not to reappoint Bristor to a second term, claiming that she created a “hostile workplace” in which staff, particularly women and people over 40, were hounded out of jobs and roles amid numerous violations of FAU’s Code of Conduct and HR policies. According to these UFF administrators’ surveys, Bristor refused to redress the bully mentality of chairs towards faculty and students. Some faculty claim that Bristor might be “reimbursed” by Shockley’s grant monies. 2015, July, Provost Perry’s memo was to do the chair’s 360 evaluation immediately, but she hid the memo until the beginning of the 2016 Spring Semester. Out of pressure from this department’s faculty, she reluctantly did it. However, in 2014, when Perry wanted to replace Shockley with another, Bristor protected Shockley, indicating Dr. Russo had left FAU on her own, ignoring the fact that Shockley has had a history of removing stellar faculty including a tenured professor named Michael Galbraith, he fired for sexual harassment (fabricated by Shockley’s cohort). She allowed Shockley to remove most of ACE full time faculty and now he successfully made Bryan the only Queen Bee in the program, teaching all her courses online in her comfortable home located in South Carolina. The rest of the vast majority of courses are assigned to her students, a clear violation of SACS accreditation standards. For more, please contact Bob or Meredith, UFF presidents.

  4. M. M says:

    Facts About Retaliation/Discrimination–A Lesson for University Officials:

    Retaliation is the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in the federal sector and the most common discrimination finding in federal sector cases.

    An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise “retaliate” against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination. The same laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability, as well as wage differences between men and women performing substantially equal work, also prohibit retaliation against individuals who oppose unlawful discrimination or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding.

    For details, please visit EEOC website

    • Patricia Ows says:

      Florida Civil Rights Act

      760.01 Purposes; construction; title.—
      (1) Sections 760.01-760.11 and 509.092 shall be cited as the “Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.”
      (2) The general purposes of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 are to secure for all individuals within the state freedom from discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, pregnancy, national origin, age, handicap, or marital status and thereby to protect their interest in personal dignity, to make available to the state their full productive capacities, to secure the state against domestic strife and unrest, to preserve the public safety, health, and general welfare, and to promote the interests, rights, and privileges of individuals within the state.

      • Burdham says:

        Dear President Kelly and Provost Perry,

        Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Dr. John A. Henschke, Ed.D. and I currently work at Lindenwood University in St. Charles, MO. I have served as President of the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education [AAACE], the Professional Association in the field of Adult Education. I have also served as Chair of the Commission on International Adult Education [CIAE] of AAACE. Recently, the Self Directed Learning Society directed by a former FAU Professor, Dr. Lucy, awarded me the Malcolm Knowles Award in Florida.

        I am contacting you to urge you to reconsider your decision to terminate the tenure of Dr. Victor C. X. Wang as it may draw negative national and international attention to your institution that is likely to tarnish its reputation due to the fact that the termination appears to be based on discrimination and retaliation.

        I have known and worked with Dr. Wang for the past 15 years in the field of Adult Education and Education Leadership on an international level and have come to know him as an exceptional instructor with an outstanding record who is popular among his graduate students as well as his peers and colleagues. I serve as an associate editor for Dr. Wang and have personally contributed to Dr. Wang’s journal. I have also asked Malcolm Knowles’ close colleague, Dr. Edgar Boone, to endorse his journal, International Journal of Adult Vocational Education and Technology. The scholarship of Dr. Wang adds greatly to the scholarship level and reputation of your institution based on the sheer number of his refereed publications as well as the renown of his journal, which is catalogued by many schools around the world, including Ivy League schools. In fact, I have learned that the FAU library deans look forward to the journal’s publication and his books every spring and hold workshops to study Dr. Wang’s journal articles.

        I have heard from both Dr. Wang’s graduate students as well as his colleagues that they feel that Dr. Wang was framed by his chair and dean based on unfounded and discriminatory opinions, rather than hard facts, related to negative statements about FAU made by a “Mr. Joe” with an e-mail account in Indonesia. Universities should be the institution in society that is the most dedicated to reason and evidence-based decisions, but the decision to terminate Dr. Wang’s tenure does not appear to be supported by either reason or hard evidence. Instead, the decision seems to be based on a personal agenda of only a handful of people with a serious lack of even the most basic knowledge of geography, as they seem to assume that every person of Asian origin knows and communicates with every other person in Asia.

        Should you need to contact me regarding this petition on behalf of Dr. Wang, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am available every day as I am deeply concerned about Dr. Wang’s well-being which is seriously affected by your institution’s decision to terminate his tenure and exceptional contributions.

        Most Sincerely,

        John A. Henschke, Ed. D.

        • Eric Fisher says:

          I had the opportunity of talking with Kelly twice about this dinosaur, Shockley. No one is happy with his TOXIC/Nasty MISCONDUCT against faculty and students. From what Kelly told me, Shockley’s days are numbered. He will retire on his own. We told Dr. Wang to sue his pants off to get justice for the whole academic community. FAU should release this racist and his racist friends in the administration, engaged in a pattern of misconduct and discrimination…

  5. Dennis says:

    Dear University of FAU, EEOC, State Attorney General, and Colleagues,

    I discuss the mistreatment of me as a student by Dr. Shockley of the Department of Educational Leadership. Dr. Shockley dropped me from the doctoral program in January, 2016, after I had started the Spring Semester, totally outside of legitimate channels. Further, he stopped my GA payment, causing great stress on my family. In addition, he took away my Presidential Scholarship in the second or third week of January, 2016. Finally, because of the fact that I live in an Adult Education Doctoral Program Ghost Town, with regrettably not even ONE class to take in my field this semester, I am therefore placed in a position where I need to set the record straight about my work here in Educational Leadership FAU. I came to FAU from China to quietly study for a PhD in adult education, and had absolutely no intent of getting involved in the office politics of this university. However, being the witness and victim of discrimination on the part of Dr. Shockley and his abuse of power toward me as a student, I cannot now remain silent. At a minimum, I must at least show my progress here at FAU.

    Let’s look at my record at FAU, and only at FAU:

    1) Peer-reviewed publications, five already published 2) Additional international publications
    3) Grades, GPA = 4.0 4) GRE scores = 1420 5) Volunteer work at FAU 6) Educational research trips
    7) Speeches and presentations 8) GA responsibilities and 9) Obstacles by Dr. Shockley.
    Number One: Peer-Reviewed Publications, five already published.
    1. Published 2015, February. Book review in Adult Education Quarterly, North America’s
    leading journal in my field, Tier I, Reviewed Wang, V. C. X. (Ed.). (2013). International
    Education and the Next-Generation Workforce: Competition in the Global Economy. Hershey,
    PA: IGI Global. 304 pp. $176.70 (hardcopy). Publication attached below.
    2. Published 2016, January. Book review in a Wiley’s leading journal, New Horizons in Adult
    Education and Human Resource Development; reviewed Wang, Victor C. X., & Bryan, Valerie
    C. (Eds.). (2014). Andragogical and Pedagogical Methods for Curriculum and Program
    Development, Hershey, PA: IGI. Publication attached below.
    3. Published 2015, October. Book review in International Journal of Adult Vocational
    Education and Technology; Book review about Activity Theory, Authentic Learning and
    Emerging Technologies: Towards a Transformative Higher Education Pedagogy. Publication
    attached below.
    4. Published 2015, September. Article in IJAVET about adult learning and social justice:
    Keefe, D. (2015). Andragogy in the Appalachians: Myles Horton, the Highlander Folk School,
    and Education for Social and Economic Justice. Course 1, Current course (IJAVET), 6(3), 16-
    30. Journal article published in IJAVET, article went through blind review process; journal
    indexed in 13 academic data bases including Applied Social Sciences; under review by SSCI
    indexing. IJAVET has published articles by leading scholars including former
    Harvard/Columbia Professor, Stephen Brookfield, Harvard graduates, current FAU Professor
    Ostrowski and her Columbia friend, Ellie Dragon Severson (Department Chair). Publications
    attached below.
    5. Published 2014, May. Refereed chapter on Adult Motivations for Learning and the 19th
    Century Chautauqua Movement (abbreviated title), published in Education and Technology in a
    Changing Society; once again found a chapter by the above mentioned professors and chapters
    by other leading scholars in the same book. Publication attached below.
    Number Three: Grades, GPA = 4.0

    Course 1, Grade A, Wang, Leadership I
    Course 2, Grade A, Liberman, Statistics
    Course 3, Grade A, Vasquez-Colina, Research
    Course 4, Grade A, Wang, Leadership II
    Course 5, Grade A, Morris, Advanced Statistics
    Course 6, Grade A, Wang. Curriculum
    Course 7, Grade A, Maslin-Ostrowski/Wang, Leadership III
    Course 8, Grade A, Wang, Adult and Community Education
    Course 9, Grade A, Bottorff, History and Philosophy of American Education
    Course 10, Grade A, Maslin-Ostrowski, Qualitative Inquiry
    Course 11, Grade A, Maslin-Ostrowski, Directed Independent Study, Nonagenerians
    Course 12, Current course, spring, 2016, (Outside of program because no classes available!)
    Course 13, Current course, spring, 2016, (Outside of program because no classes available!)
    Course 14, Current course, spring, 2016, (Outside of program because no classes available!)

    Number Four: GRE Scores: Taken at age 62.

    GRE Qualitative 670
    GRE Quantitative 750
    GRE Total 1420
    GRE Analytical Writing 5.0 (for interpretation: 93rd percentile)

    Number Five: Volunteer work for FAU
    Three full days accompanying visiting Chinese scholarship (only unpaid volunteer), 2014
    Three full days of help from my Chinese wife, also unpaid, 2014
    Preparation of the first Southern USA Language Festival for Dr. Kelly and FAU, 2015-2016
    Judging in the Science poster presentations for FAU, 2015
    Reading for students who cannot see, 2016.
    Number Six: Educational Research Trips, NB: NO funding from department; I paid for everything.
    The Chautauqua Institution, 8 days, August, 2016
    Highlander Folk School, Knoxville, Tennessee, 4 days, December, 2015
    FernUniversitat, Hagan, Germany, 1 day, August, 2016
    Frankfurt School of Sozialforschung, Frankfurt, Germany, 1 day, August, 2016
    Volkshochschule, Freiburg, Germany, 1 day, August, 2016
    Number Seven: Speeches and Presentations
    John Dewey and the Application of Language Learning to Life, Lille, France, August, 2016
    The International Festival of Languages, Duisberg, Germany, August, 2016
    The Chautauqua Heritage Lecture, Chautauqua, New York, August, 2016
    Number Eight: GA Responsibilities, 2014-2016
    The gamut. Mostly researching. Topics touched on in addition to those published so far:
    Transformative Learning, Confucianism and Transformative Learning, History of Chinese
    thought and adult learning, Stakeholders and diffusion of technology in the case of language
    laboratories, Dewey in China, various article reviews, literature reviews, editing of others’

    Number Nine: Dr Shockley, unfair discrimination against certain students, start: April, 2015. WHY?

    I will always wonder what Dr. Shockley’s motives were in attempting to, illegally I insist, take
    away my Presidential Scholarship in April, 2016. Why would any department head try to do
    something so unethical? Why did he ask me to tell no one of what happened? (I almost felt I
    was in Godfather IV or something). Why did he delay my summer registration by weeks, and
    my fall registration as well? Why did he insist that a change in one course taken BEFORE the
    course even began (and completely due to HIS mistake) involved a FEE of over $3,000? And
    speaking of $3000, why did I have to talk to 14 people at FAU to get another erroneous charge
    of $3000 off my school bill? Why did he ask ONE YEAR after I was in the program for a
    minor transcript from 46 years ago? Why has he let the department again erroneously charge
    me for my classes? Why did he give me an internal scholarship of about $2,000 in 2014, but
    NONE in 2015 in spite of four new peer-reviewed publications in my field, plus a straight-A
    GPA? Why did he cut me out of the program, suddenly and without any warning or due
    process? Why do I hear so many stories of favoritism in Educational Leadership where a
    student with a GRE of 250 in quantitative gets scholarships and three more classes to teach, and
    one with 750 gets nothing despite acute financial need? I am not even allowed to teach at FAU
    – thanks to our department — and yet I have the most university teaching experience of anyone,
    including most of the professors, here! Why does another student who has had more than 15
    incompletes get a big scholarship, and a student who has NO incompletes gets nothing? Why
    since August 2015 have I been able to take ONLY ONE course directly on the list of classes that
    the Department says I need to take? Why are the middle courses in Adult and Community
    Education a complete ghost town? An academic ghost town. Why the poisonous administrative
    atmosphere? Why? Dear professors, I came from China to STUDY, to study HERE. I was assuming that the department heads of this university were, above all, scholars, and also humanists with a sense of decency and a soul that believes in helping students (whether or not that student’s work redounds to a particular department head’s glory or not). Dear professors, I am not asking you to publicly stick your neck out for me or for my professor because I fear that in this toxic atmosphere of the Educational Leadership program, you will also suffer from repercussions and subtle or not so subtle retributions from Dr. Shockley. At best, you will be made to feel uncomfortable, disloyal to the team. But I do ask you to remember. I ask you to not close your eyes, and to not allow others to aid and abet an injustice. I have seen how this department chair, Dr. Shockley, (“getting by with a little help from his friends,” sayeth the Beatles) flouts past and present pillars of the FAU mission and vision to raise our admission standards, to keep talented faculty, and to offer student support and scholarship funds to exceptional students, even if they are age 64. To make this concrete: this Department is on autopilot with a flight path directly opposite that which Dr. Kelly and FAU is striving for. Something is very wrong here, and I just spoke last week to one blind student who has undergone what I consider horrible, discriminatory treatment by Dr. Shockley. Also recently, one kind colleague who became aware of the “serial” mistreatment that I have been undergoing since April, 2015, sent me the results of the internal 360-degree evaluations for the Education department. Honestly, as a former manager in business and in education myself, reading these extremely negative evaluations, I would say you have some severe leadership problems here in Educational Leadership, right here, and so I would say “follow the money” or trace the networks of nepotism and favoritism. Make this place a REAL department of EDUCATION that at least follows its own written precepts and those of the university.

    Dennis Keefe,
    Presidential Scholar,
    Educational Leadership, ACE
    Florida Atlantic University

  6. R. Dan says:

    No one understands why Chair Robert Shockley fired his own Presidential Scholar/GA he appointed himself based on Dennis’ record high GRE Score and work experience in Europe and China. From reading Dennis’ side of the story, FAU allowed Dr. Robert Shockley to engage in egregious discrimination and retaliation against some many stellar individuals like Dennis Keefe. Is Kelly AFRAID of Dr. Robert Shockley? Why is Kelly a dog in the manger? He does not take a shit, let others do the job to remove what Vice President Dr. Mountford calls a “parasite”!

    • Dennis Keefe says:

      The reason Dr. Shockley fired me without giving me due process of law (he cut me out of FAU without any notice) was because he “suspected” me of sending emails from Indonesia (I speak 6 languages including French; Joe’s emails contained a large number of French words). That was why he called me into his office in April 2015 and Threatened point blank, “I could take away your Presidential Scholarship and GA ship.” Instead of kowtowing to him (The Tsai, Shockley), I replied,”I will speak to President Kelly if you take away my Presidential Scholarship and GA ship.” After that meeting, Dr. Shockley started his retaliation campaign against me and my family.
      Even to this day, my wife still blames me, “I should have kissed his butt like all other younger, prettier GAs do.”
      I cannot do that and will not do that. He abused his Chair’s power and mistreated, discriminated against me in the first place. I was not interested in his politics. My goal was to get a degree. Although out of the system, I am watching the employment discrimination case and WILL celebrate when the court issues him a decree to change his discriminatory practice and punitive damages. We all want justice returned to this academic community.

  7. R. B says:

    Why did FAU allow this Depart to engage in race discrimination?

    As a discrimination plaintiff, you must prove:
    that you were performing your job satisfactorily and meeting your employer’s legitimate expectations; and
    that you were singled out and subjected to an adverse employment action (like termination), solely based on your membership in a protected category (race, age, etc.). In other words, you have to show that your employer acted against you with discriminatory intent.
    Discriminatory intent may be shown directly, such as when an employee is subjected to racial slurs or sexually offensive comments in the workplace. It may also be shown indirectly, via circumstantial evidence. For instance, an employee claiming age discrimination might show that all workers over fifty were targeted for termination, whereas younger workers were not.

    • L. G. says:

      Below is analysis of why Dr. Robert Shockley and FAU “engaged” in retaliation based on race discrimination:

      How can this person make a false allegation without repercussions?

      To address retaliation, organizations must recognize both the potential for retaliation and the interaction of psychological and organizational characteristics that contribute to the likelihood of retaliation. Several factors ultimately affect whether a manager will engage in retaliation. These include the manager’s psychological traits, perceptions of the organizational culture, and organizational opportunities.

      At the psychological level, researchers have found that a variety of personality traits are associated with retaliation. For example, researchers have suggested that those with a sense of entitlement will experience offenses much more emotionally than others and take them much more personally. (2) As such, these individuals are more likely to ruminate over the offense, ultimately seeking retaliation. Similarly, authoritarian personalities, people who place a high value on status in group settings, are predisposed to retaliation when offended, particularly if that offense is from someone of a “subordinate” status. (3) Extraverts, on the other hand, are much more likely to seek non-aggressive resolution in conflict situations, forgiving offenders in an attempt to salvage the relationship. (4) Such individuals are less likely to ruminate and seek retaliation.

      Researchers have also concluded that people seek retaliation when they feel the workplace is not fair and that they cannot depend on formal channels for fair or just treatment. (5) Individuals will also retaliate if they perceive the perpetrator as behaving in a way that is intentionally malicious. Individuals are also more likely to retaliate, if:

      The accusation is very serious;
      The accusation will negatively impact future relationships with others at work;
      The accused feels that he or she is being judged;
      The accused believes that his or her job is in jeopardy; and/or
      There is reason to believe that the accusation will harm perceived employability.

      In addition to the various personality factors mentioned above, organizational structures impact retaliation. Rigid bureaucratic structures promote retaliatory behavior among managers. Organizations that do not foster a procedurally just climate also encourage retaliation. Organizations that foster a climate of aggression and bullying are more likely have managers who abuse power and retaliate when claims are made. (6)

      Other organizational factors that influence retaliation are:

      A lack of administrative policies discouraging retaliation;
      An authoritarian management culture;
      Overly hierarchical organizations, where rank or organizational level is prized;
      High levels of task-related conflicts;
      Reward systems and structures that promote competition; and
      The ability of the accused to isolate the accuser.

  8. Eric Fisher says:

    Robert Shockley and Valerie C. Bryan, have created a coverup culture at Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology, FAU, that not only enabled a hostile work environment for students but also for professors of color.

    The only consistency at DELRM, FAU is the abhorrent, intolerable, unlawful and hostile racial discrimination that was inflicted on minority employees and disabled students that appears more akin to Plantation-style management than a modern-day work environment. Kelly’s strategic team SHOULD do its best to remedy its WRONGS. Or SACS will shut down this Department and College under Bristor. FAU internal deans/reviewers already issued a “negative” review of DELRM’s programs under the two racists…

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>