On Suspension and Dismissal Proceedings of Penn State Professor Oliver Baker

Media contact: Michael Bérubé <mxberube@gmail.com>

On November 8, 2021, Professor Oliver Baker was found not guilty of harassment by Centre County District Judge Steven Lachman. The charge stemmed from an August 27 pro-vaccination rally at Old Main, at which Professor Baker attempted to de-escalate a potentially threatening situation involving a counter-protestor who, according to people in attendance, was disrupting the speakers and physically menacing members of the crowd, making them fear for their safety.

Professor Baker was initially charged with simple assault and disorderly conduct, but these charges were found to be baseless by District Attorney Bernie Cantorna and dropped. Baker’s subsequent acquittal on the lesser charge of “harassment—following in public” therefore meant that in the eyes of the law, Baker literally did nothing wrong whatsoever.

We are aware of the argument that Professor Baker should have alerted police rather than attempt to reason with the counter-protestor himself. (Indeed, at trial the counter-protestor testified that Professor Baker simply asked to accompany him to the periphery of the rally in order to listen and talk.) But these are volatile times, and many rally attendees had legitimate reason to fear violence. We believe Professor Baker should be lauded for his commitment to protecting the safety of students and faculty who felt threatened.

Professor Baker was placed on administrative leave after charges were filed, and an internal investigation followed. Faculty familiar with the case had every reason to expect that Professor Baker would be reinstated if acquitted.

We are therefore shocked to learn that rather than accept Professor Baker’s acquittal, the University has initiated an AC70 dismissal procedure against him on the grounds that he is guilty of “grave misconduct.” This decision threatens to undermine the very legitimacy of the AC70 process. A faculty member cannot be guilty of grave misconduct if he has committed no misconduct of any kind.

Quite apart from delegitimating AC70, this decision sends a chilling message to all University faculty: that they can be brought up for dismissal by an unaccountable Human Resources office that has ignored a faculty member’s exoneration by a court of law.

We understand that the HR process is independent of the legal proceeding, as it should be. But we believe that the legitimacy of the legal proceeding stems from its requirement of testimony under oath, clear standards of evidence, and cross-examination of witnesses. The HR process permits none of these things, and for reasons of confidentiality, is shrouded in secrecy.

Should the AC70 process go forward, the insult to justice—and the harm to the University’s reputation—would be incalculable. Such a misuse of our dismissal procedures would surely draw national attention, the repercussions of which would resonate for years. In the interest of justice, therefore, and in the best interest of the University, we ask that the AC70 process be stopped before irreparable damage is done.

Additional information about the the use and abuse of faculty suspensions and dismissals is provided by this report from the AAUP:

https://www.aaup.org/report/use-and-abuse-faculty-suspensions