April 25, 2024 - Where There's Woke - Thomas Smith
52:10
WTW49: Anti-woke Law Professor Swears DEI Took His Job
Folks, there are anti-woke crybabies, and there are anti-woke crybabies, and then there is Scott Gerber. Scott Gerber may be the new leader in the WTW clubhouse for pathetic, egomaniacal anti-woke manbabies. You might not recognize the name, but you likely will recognize this joke of an article he wrote defending Clarence Thomas, "Supreme Court justices are allowed to have friends." Believe us when we say, Scott Gerber's victim complex when it comes to his own life makes the Clarence Thomas article look like the dudes from The 300. Lydia's got the story for us, and you won't want to miss it. Feel free to email us at lydia@seriouspod.com or thomas@seriouspod.com! Please pretty please consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/wherethereswoke!
Anywhere you see diversity, equity, and inclusion, you see Marxism and you see woke principles being pushed.
Wokeness is a virus more dangerous than any pandemic hands down.
The woke monster is here and it's coming for everything.
Instead of go-go boots, the seductress Green M&M will now wear sneakers.
Hello and welcome to Where There's Woke.
This is... Is this episode 49?
This is 49.
This is episode 49?
Duh, I knew that.
Where have you been?
I'm your host, Thomas Smith.
That over there is your other host, Lydia Smith.
No, I'm the other host.
You can be main host.
I'm other host.
Okay.
How's it going?
Hello and welcome to... Oh, pretty good.
How are you doing?
Don't you dare take the one thing.
I'm excited to learn about your Killborn.
Yeah, we all have a Jason Killborn.
Everyone at this company does.
Yeah, I have my own Killborn.
I teased it with our top two-tier patrons at our Hangout, so they got the inside scoop before everybody else that we were going to be talking about this person in particular today.
So, this is someone who is a law professor, okay?
That's our first connection.
And his name is Scott Douglas Gerber.
Now, who is Scott Douglas Gerber?
Before we get into what is going on with this lawsuit, let me, I'll set the stage a little bit.
He has a full head of curly hair.
So you need to know that if you ever see him, that's Scott Gerber for you.
But he's a law professor out at Ohio Northern University, which is a private.
Sounds made up.
Religiously affiliated school, right?
So it is made up.
Yeah.
But he teaches law out there.
He's been out there for.
God's law.
He's been out there for over 20 years actually teaching and he is well known for being the preeminent scholar on Clarence Thomas.
He is a big fan of Clarence Thomas.
There was an interview I was watching of him giddy about when he met Clarence Thomas.
And how lovely he was and how kind he was and all of these things and, you know, he sends him his articles and whatnot in between times that they see each other.
And when the Harlan Crowe stuff came out, this guy, because, you know, he knows Clarence Thomas.
Through and through.
Sure.
Wrote an op-ed in defense of what Clarence Thomas was doing and saying that Supreme Court justices deserve to have friends, too.
Oh, that was this guy.
That's this guy.
Okay.
Yeah.
Now I'm putting it together.
Yeah.
That is the funniest stuff.
So he, yeah, 100% Supreme Court justices deserve to have friends.
And then in an interview, he also said, and you know what?
Harlan Crowe deserves to have friends, too.
Rich people deserve to have friends.
Incredible.
But that doesn't make sense though, you see, because he could have friends that are not Supreme Court justices and that would be no problem.
And then it wouldn't be an issue.
Any non-Supreme Court justice friends, maybe non-politician friends, no one would complain about that.
So it's not the concept of friendship that is on the rocks here.
That's not what we're worried about.
It's the other part, the corruption.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
The power that is coming into play there.
So would it surprise you to hear that in April 2023, he was removed from his classroom.
Oh, wow.
In the presence of students, according to him.
He wasn't sure why.
He wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
He wasn't sure why?
He said he did not know why.
And he wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that is titled, DEI brings Kafka to my law school.
Sorry, the Religiously Affiliated Private Law School?
Yeah.
It was the DEI, they did it?
Yep.
Do these people think there's like DEI agents like at the back of their jacket, you know, and have their badges and they come in and take you away?
Sorry, you're too white.
Yeah.
Let me go ahead and read this to you.
It's not very long.
Franz Kafka's The Trial tells the story of Joseph K., a man arrested, prosecuted, and killed by an inaccessible authority with the nature of his crime revealed neither to him nor to the reader.
I'm Joseph K.
In case you didn't get, I'm me.
I'm Jesus.
That's like me.
Why else would you be bringing it up?
I think we could have done that, Matt.
I know.
We could have figured this out.
Around 1 p.m.
on Friday, April 14th, Ohio Northern University campus security officers entered my classroom with my students present and escorted me to the dean's office.
Armed town police followed me down the hall.
My students appeared shocked and frightened.
I know I was.
I was immediately barred from teaching, banished from campus, and told that if I didn't sign a separation agreement and release of claims by April 21st, ONU would commence dismissal proceedings against me.
The grounds?
Collegiality.
The specifics, none.
Okay.
There is no chance that that's true.
There's absolutely zero chance that people came into your classroom, escorted you out, and then the Dean or whatever is like, can't tell you why, but you're gone.
That's just not, there's absolutely no fucking chance.
He's a tenured professor.
There's no way.
Oh, tenured?
I missed that part.
Oh yeah, no, I totally left that out.
He's tenured.
Even less of a chance that this is real.
That is, and that's, I mean, we've seen this.
Killborn is a perfect example.
We've seen this exaggeration.
We've seen this victim complex and trying to trick people who won't ever question you or check on your claims, trick them into thinking you're oppressed.
But this is like a new level of it.
That is insane.
So here's where the DEI piece comes into.
He goes on to say, Joseph K. never learns what he's alleged to have done wrong.
The offenses I've allegedly committed haven't been revealed to me either, but I have an educated guess.
Is it educated based on how they obviously told you what it was?
No.
This is what he has decided in his mind.
Like many universities, ONU is aggressively pursuing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.
I have objected publicly as vice chairman of the University Council, an elected faculty governance body, and in newspaper op-eds and on television to DEI efforts that don't include viewpoint diversity and would lead to illegal discrimination in employment and admissions.
The same week I was let out of my classroom by police and campus security, I published an op-ed defending Justice Clarence Thomas's right to have friends, even rich ones.
What does that have to do with DEI?
Yeah, that has nothing to do with DEI.
He linked it because he wants more traffic.
Well, but is that the diverse viewpoint thing?
He said, oh, that's an example of his diverse viewpoint.
Right, right.
His viewpoint diversity.
Of DEI.
I'm sorry, he's at a religiously affiliated school.
Yeah.
Are there not conservatives?
Like, genuine question, is it not a conservative place?
Like, are there not already conservatives there?
I think there are conservatives there.
From what I can tell, kind of poking around, it seems pretty diverse across the board.
I mean, it's a lot of white people, but in terms of viewpoint, thought diversity, it did seem reasonable to me.
I had plenty of other crappy law professors there that are also super conservative.
He's not alone in that piece.
So this was interesting.
I sent you a little link where he speaks about this experience in his own words.
I read the op-ed, but this we get to hear straight from the man himself.
So let's continue.
On April the 14th of this year at Ohio Northern University, the home of Mike Allen, near and around Ada, A disgusting event took place and I had on Professor Scott Gerber a couple times since then with an update and now the judge has gotten involved in the case and first of all, Professor, should I call you Professor?
Call me Scott, Bill.
Because you're not a professor anymore.
Well, I still am.
They haven't quite fired me.
They're working hard to do it, but they haven't quite succeeded yet.
That's weird.
Give the American people a synopsis of what happened April the 14th, caused by Ohio Northern University president and others, the dean.
Then we'll talk about the update that happened a couple of days ago.
Give us a full report.
On April 14th, I was teaching my constitutional law class.
We were wrapping up.
Just before one o'clock and campus security entered the classroom with my students present came down to the front and One of the sergeants whispered into my ear something to the effect of your respected member of the community Please follow us quietly to the Dean's office and so I was shocked and confused and scared I looked into the classroom and my students seemed confused and scared also and
I then had to do a perp walk through the stairs, and at the top of the stairs, armed Ada Town Police were waiting, and so I was escorted to the Dean's suite by campus security and armed town police.
When I got into the Dean's suite, the Dean's office is in there, the town police were guarding the exits to the Dean's suite, so I couldn't get out.
And the Dean handed me a two-page piece of paper that said that unless I resign in a week, he's going to institute dismissal proceedings against me, and I have tenure.
And I asked him what I'm accused of doing, and he wouldn't tell me.
I recorded the meeting, as I'm allowed to by law, but he also knew I was doing it.
And so I asked him repeatedly, what am I accused of doing?
He wouldn't tell me.
And so on the form, the only thing he said was insufficient collegiality, which doesn't mean anything.
And it's also not a grounds for termination under the faculty handbook.
I was then immediately banished from campus and I've not been allowed to set foot on campus since then.
And so that's basically it.
And then the university, the university's president on June 28th at 1026 at night when I was asleep, emailed me the charges for dismissal.
And she gave me five or so business days to prepare for my dismissal hearing.
And I have no idea, had no idea what I was accused of doing wrong.
It was just full of generic and conclusory assertions like, you know, he's a bad guy kind of stuff.
But no, you know, who was I a bad person?
He's a bad guy.
What did I do?
When did I do it?
That kind of thing.
And so my lawyers asked the dismissal committee to give us enough time to prepare.
They refused.
We asked, they then said the president had to do it.
So we asked her and she didn't respond.
And so, um, I hired, um, outside counsel to, um, to try to help me and outside counsel filed a TRO, uh, in Hardin County on June 30th and on July 6th.
Uh, the judge issued a temporary restraining order saying it's ridiculous to think I could prepare for something this important in five or six business days because he knew my entire career and reputation was at stake.
Okay, so not knowing any of the real details, I mean, so they tried to make him resign, and I'm realizing now, like, there's no probably requirements for if you're asking someone to resign, I doubt you have to, like, list the charges of why you want them to resign.
Like, I think you can just, so if that's what happened, and he's like, hey, resign, and by the way, I like, by his telling, there's just no reason.
Like, this just happened out of nowhere.
Like, he woke up in a different universe in which A man who looked exactly like him had committed a bunch of crimes.
This doesn't just happen for nothing.
There's obviously something.
And so he knows what that is.
But if he's like, hey, if the president or whatever, the dean is like, hey, you're a piece of shit.
We hate you.
We hate you.
Can you just leave?
Avoid the cost to all of us of fighting them, whatever.
He says, no, fair enough.
All right.
If it's true, if any of this is true and the dean said, all right, well, then we're having your hearing in five days.
Yeah, that's a that's a bit rushed.
You do.
He should get due process in that decision.
So I don't know if that's.
So let me give you some more details.
What's really happening?
So this memo that he received from the dean as he was escorted to the dean's office, the first paragraph says, Professor Gerber, I have received an investigative report from Human Resources conducted by an independent law firm.
Okay.
Wait, no, hold on.
I thought he just said, you're a bad guy.
Yeah.
I heard this firm to investigate allegations that you have repeatedly violated the provisions of the ONU faculty handbook and ONU staff handbook governing collegiality.
Wait, no, hold on.
I thought he just said you're a bad guy.
Yeah.
His version of it was, yeah, it's just I'm a bad guy.
I'm a bad guy.
If I know law deans, deans of law schools, they would definitely just write on it, ah, he's just like a bad guy.
The law firm substantiated the allegations and determined that your conduct rises to a level sufficient to support separation under paragraph, et cetera, et cetera.
I've reviewed and concur with their factual findings.
I intend to refer your case to the appropriate committee regarding, you know, dismissal proceedings.
But then he says, Because of your long service to the College of Law and the University, I've received permission to offer you the opportunity to announce your resignation, which you can identify as a retirement if you so choose.
Oh, wow.
Okay.
Effective May 31st, 2025, in lieu of this process.
Oh, that's a good deal.
Yeah.
If I receive a separation agreement and general release signed by you before April 21st, 2023, I will not forward this memorandum and will instead consider the matter both confidential and closed after the effective date of that agreement.
And that included the agreement that was drafted by general counsel for him to review and to consider.
So if he considered that, he was going to be able to teach remotely for the next two academic years for university service under his tenure.
Oh, because this was last year.
Oh yeah, so they were giving him a lot of time.
They were giving him a lot of time.
We're bending over backwards for what sounds like a real piece of shit already.
Yep.
And they said, you can continue scholarship and teaching, but you won't be allowed to do any service because of the nature of the substantiated allegations.
Service?
So like serving on committees, participating in like... For that two years?
Yeah, for the remainder of his time.
But he could continue teaching.
He could continue doing research.
et cetera, et cetera.
So then he did say within the document itself, it was giving him a timeline of one week to respond to whether or not he wanted to take this deal.
Oh, sure.
Yeah.
That's a very different thing.
Right.
So the deal or the date came and went and he did not sign it, of course, because here we are and we all know about this.
It would have been confidential had he just signed it.
Yeah.
God, these people.
Take the absolute W that that is.
Yeah.
By getting off without public embarrassment, without us podcasting about it, by the way.
I wonder if the dean warned him about that.
Oh, I know.
You should be worried about a little project.
So they actually gave him additional time.
So there was that initial week that came and went.
And I was going to say also, I imagine it would be tremendously easy to find another job in those circumstances when you have two years confidential versus whatever the fuck he plans to do now.
What an idiot.
So they actually granted him a significant time, and I think it was after review of the circumstances and tenure and stuff, and, you know, they wanted to be more cautious in terms of the deadlines that they were giving him.
But May 10th was the deadline, and he did not sign anything.
He did not accept it.
And so the dean forwarded a recommendation for dismissal to HR to start that process.
And within it, in the recommendation, in which Scott Gerber was CC'd, It lists what the complaints are specifically.
Right.
Being a bad guy.
Yeah.
Having opinions.
So multiple law school faculty and staff submitted complaints and letters of concern to the dean.
Within those letters and those complaints, the allegations were varied, but the common theme throughout was that Professor Gerber was engaging in a continuing and pervasive pattern of unprofessional conduct and behavior that included but was not limited to bullying, harassment, physical intimidation, and verbal abuse.
Wow.
Most frequently, this was targeted at junior professors, untenured professors, women, and racial minorities.
Wow.
Yeah.
So thought crime, in other words.
Yeah.
I did have to pull him up now just because of you're saying this and boy, does he look like a piece of shit.
I'm sorry.
And you see the curly hair, right?
He just sucks.
That's not really... It just kept grabbing my attention.
I couldn't help it.
Like he keeps extra racism in there or what?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I don't know.
I don't know.
So you think that, okay, that's pretty clear.
You know, a normal person would reflect on that and be like, oh yeah, I was a jerk to so-and-so.
Or I could see why so-and-so would interpret that as not very kind in that scenario.
And it's not just one instance.
It's multiple.
I had mentioned at the beginning of the memorandum that he received, it was, you know, that there was an investigation that was taking place.
Scott Gerber has been aware of the investigation the entire time.
I was going to say, from our experience on this very show, I'm pretty sure he would be aware of what was going on there.
Yeah.
So that began in January.
So not a surprise.
He's really going to try to tell us.
Yeah, officers came in.
They tased me first off.
Then they whispered, you're a hero and a true gentleman.
I don't know what that thing was.
You whisper in my ear, you're an amazing, upstanding member of our community.
Please, first off, get in this orange jumpsuit right here in the middle class and then put on this blindfold and then we're going to take you.
But you'll go down in history and we'll all remember you.
Thank you for your service.
So it was an independent law firm called, you know, the Taft firm is what they referred them as.
It's Taft, Stettinus, and Hollister.
I don't know.
Tettinus?
Jeez.
Stettinus.
Stettinius?
I don't know.
Yeah, Tettinus.
It's intense.
Staff, Tettinus, and Rubella.
So it says that the director of human resources, after they retained services of the Taft firm, the director of human resources contacted Gerber by email on January 13th, 2023, and asked him to give her a call.
He emailed back.
And I have the emails, which are hilarious.
How do you have those?
Oh, because he decided not to send this as confidential and they all got attached as exhibits to this incredible docket that I've been living and breathing.
What a docket.
What a docket.
You want to say like, I do my best in these things to try to see things from the other side, at least in terms of like, I get that when you think you are wrong, you might have a different story than others.
And it's like, I'll give some wiggle room for like, yeah, okay.
You've got your version of events.
I'll at least kind of like try to accept that that's your reality.
But when you come in already off the bat and say, yeah, they took me out.
No idea why.
Don't even know anything about it.
They came in, arrested me on the spot.
Not a word.
No idea.
When in actuality you've participated and been aware of an HR investigation by an outside law firm.
That's already disqualified.
There's no coming back from that.
That means you're a lying piece of shit.
That's all that means.
There's no, what is the best case version of those lies?
Like, I don't even know what it would be.
Yeah, well, and it's even beyond, you know, knowing the presence of the investigation and knowledge of the investigation.
Let me read this timeline to you a little bit about how much he actually knew about the investigation.
Human resources had contacted him.
January 13th, 2023, essentially immediately after retaining the services of the Taft firm and asking for a call, Gerber did not return her call.
The human resources lead, you know, they were trying to get a hold of him in some way because they're like, we need to talk.
Yeah.
Then they found out that Gerber was represented by counsel after they were unable to contact him January 17th.
And then they worked through his lawyer to attempt to schedule an interview.
They sent invitations to his counsel on January 19th, January 20th, January 27th, and February 10th.
Oh, so he thinks if he just avoids it, then it doesn't exist.
Yeah.
They also verbally extended an invitation to counsel when they were talking to him in person on January 23rd.
And it says, in all, he has received six invitations to be interviewed.
They wanted copies of the complaints and the letters of concern before they would agree to the interview.
The Taft firm declined that request in advance of the interview.
They said that that's not how they do these investigations ever.
They never provide that information in advance.
This is in line with their policies and procedures.
So you can get your story straight about whatever their version of it is.
Right.
Exactly.
Exactly.
And what you don't need to bother bringing up because they don't have proof of it.
But in those conversations, Gerber had basically said, like, is this something I have to, like, is this something that I'm forced to do?
And the Taft firm had said, you know, this is completely voluntary.
Your participation is voluntary.
However, keep in mind that there are potential disciplinary implications because of ONU's policies in the faculty and staff handbooks for failing to cooperate with the investigation.
That is something that is expected of professors.
No one's going to force you or compel you to do it, but there are other consequences that could arise because of your choice in that matter.
During the investigation, the Taft firm interviewed 16 current and former employees of the law school who had either made allegations about Gerber, submitted complaints or letters of concern about him, or were otherwise identified as possibly having knowledge or information related to the investigation.
And based off of all of those interviews, the Taft firm put together a report that they said all the people interviewed felt that Gerber tended to direct the bullying and harassment to two primary targets, either persons who are inferior to him in rank and who therefore feel vulnerable and less able to defend themselves, and persons who are in a position to expose or discipline his misconduct.
Very interesting.
Which misconduct?
Just the first thing?
Yeah, I think just the first thing.
His attitude and behavior.
They also had concerns that there would be physical safety implications of colleagues in the law school if action was taken against him.
People felt, you know, very nervous about that.
And so the Taft firm decided that these allegations are serious.
They can be substantiated.
A group of 18 people or whatever you said doesn't usually just make stuff up like that.
Right, right.
Gather together, inspire.
Hey, you want to just pretend this fucking guy is the worst?
Like all at once, just for fun.
Hey, not only current employees, ex-employees too.
You want to get in on this?
It'd be a great goof.
And so they decided that, you know, it's substantiated.
It not only demonstrated a longstanding pattern of harassment, intimidation, bullying and verbal abuse of faculty, staff and administrators.
He also routinely falsely accused colleagues of engaging in illegal or unprofessional activity without any factual support.
And he filed grievances and external complaints to shield himself from the consequences of his actions.
And I just want to do a little teaser.
I think the bonus for this month might be one of those grievances themselves.
From a few years ago, same school, and it's affectionately referred to as law professor versus law professor.
And it literally is a court case.
So I think I'm going to save that for patrons because it doesn't really have anything to do with this, but it is fun.
Wait, it doesn't?
No.
I mean, beside that, he has a pattern of doing this.
What is it exactly?
Is it it's him accusing someone of something or?
He filed a lawsuit against another law professor for assault.
Oh, yeah.
OK, so that's one of the things that he's done.
Yes.
I can't wait.
And it's incredible.
There was also he filed a lawsuit concerning retirement benefits being withheld from him maliciously by the university.
There's this guy is a piece of work.
And so he had the opportunity to talk during this investigation, offer his side.
He never did.
He refused.
And so ultimately, after interviewing 18 people and coming to the realization that a lot of people were having the exact same experience with this guy, and he was making the work environment not safe, not conducive to collaboration, and impacting not just folks within his College, the College of Law and his direct colleagues.
But as it said, like other administrators, he was serving in various committees on campus and interacting with other folks from other colleges and having sort of those tentacles going everywhere, impacting everybody.
He does look like he has tentacles and not in a good way.
Yeah, yeah.
So, based off of the investigation, the dean said he needed to meet with Gerber, and he had sent an email invitation to Gerber to schedule a personal conference.
Gerber did not acknowledge receipt of the email, nor did he accept the invitation to attend the personal conference.
When he failed to respond to the dean, the dean asked a public safety officer to stand in the doorway of another office so that he could observe Professor Gerber leaving his classroom.
The public safety officer- Wait, I'm sorry, is this the actual version of the thing?
This is actually what happened.
Oh, okay, I thought it was a different event.
Yeah, no, this is April 14th, the day we all remember, 2023.
The jack-booted thugs.
This is the jack-booted thugs.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So, the Dean had tried to say, let's meet and talk.
Gerber didn't even acknowledge that he emailed him.
He literally, these fucking people.
God, I hate this exact person.
Boy, this is, I feel like I've gotten a lot of exposure through various things to this kind of person.
And fucking hate them.
Yeah.
And they really do think that they can just outsmart everyone with legal fucking bullshit.
Oh, if you close your eyes and go, man, I can't hear you, can't hear, then nothing happened.
You never were accused of a bunch of misconduct.
That's literally what he's doing.
I really didn't think it would be that.
I couldn't.
It's hard to predict, you know, it's hard to predict stuff that stupid, honestly.
Like I wouldn't be my first prediction, but that is insane.
Yeah.
So the public safety officer was he waited until class was had ended.
He was outside the classroom, and as Gerber left the classroom... He beat the shit out of him.
Yeah.
He handed him a copy of the memo and escorted him to the dean's office.
Did he or did he not whisper, you're an American hero?
I'd have to ask the PSO themselves, I guess, but the Dean seemed to not have any idea that that happened.
What was that?
I don't know.
In his mind.
The use of the public safety officer was necessary to ensure he actually attended the meeting.
Yeah, no kidding.
Sounds like it.
And also to provide security for me and a witness to the meeting because of that little teaser I gave.
Gestures at this piece of shit guy.
Yeah, well, this guy in general, but also that particular lawsuit where he said another... Oh, someone assaulted him!
Someone assaulted him.
Sure, you want to play stupid games, then you get to have someone be a witness all the time.
Yep.
Yeah, no, that makes sense.
Yeah.
So that's kind of where we were at.
And so that was May 10th when that was forwarded over for dismissal.
Of 2023?
Of 2023.
2023 still.
So then a committee is formed at the school because, again, he's tenured and he has a lot of protections.
They don't pursue this lightly if they're going to pursue this at all.
No fucking care.
So after the committee was together, they gathered a number of folks, and they did take into consideration conflicts of interest.
There's no one that's allowed to be from your college there, so no one from the College of Law is participating.
But again, because he had such an impact across the entire university, he contends that there continue to be conflicts of interest on this panel.
Yeah, how convenient.
Like you taint everybody and then no one can get rid of you because they're all conflicted.
And so this committee then evaluated the evidence before them for six weeks on June 28th.
They sent him an email and said, this statement of grounds for dismissal serves as official notification that I'm recommending to the hearing committee on dismissal of faculty that you be dismissed from your position as a tenured faculty member.
Pursuant to the faculty handbook, you have a right to a hearing before the hearing committee on dismissal of faculty to determine whether you should be dismissed from your faculty position.
So even though the president has reviewed this and thinks that this is reasonable, given the charges, given the allegations that have been substantiated through this investigation and the acts that then followed, there still is this hearing committee that you have the opportunity to present your case to.
Yeah.
Over and above for these fucking people.
And that's what happens, obviously, because, you know, this guy's a bad faith lawyer who's trying to do everything he can to work the system.
Yeah.
So he gets totally preferential treatment because that does work.
We saw that whole thing with Kilborn that he pulled with, gosh, that episode.
I still think about that.
The one with the affair and the weird stuff.
I know!
And then after all that, he's like, I don't have any money.
And the court's like, all right, slap on the wrist.
It does work.
You know that this isn't like, oh, they just did some bullshit.
No, they crossed every T a hundred times because they know who this guy is.
So that was June 28th.
He mentioned in that interview what happened June 30th.
He decided to file a lawsuit.
Oh, okay.
Instead of participating in his hearing on June 30th, two days after he was served with that statement, he decided he was going to file a lawsuit and also seek a temporary restraining order to delay.
And remind me, what was the timing with the offer, the Definitely Sweetheart deal?
When did that happen again?
That was April.
April 14th, 2023.
And the investigation had started in January 2023.
So now we're at the end of June.
The academic year is over.
He filed a lawsuit against Ohio Northern University, requested a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction as part of this.
He essentially wanted to delay the disciplinary hearing with ONU.
He also said, you know, that he needed to get counsel and etc, etc.
However, if you noticed during the investigative, yeah, the investigative report with Taft, he had counsel that was guiding him through that process.
They weren't very fucking good.
Or maybe they're gone, like maybe they disconnected their relationship.
Maybe they said 800 times, yeah, hey, go talk to them.
You want to talk to the people investigating you?
Do you want to stop?
Do you want to take your fingers out of your ears and actually address what's happening like an adult?
Yeah.
And then after 50 times of this asshole idiot saying no, they're like, I'm not going to represent you, man.
Like that's, I'm not going to do it.
Yeah.
Funny you should say that.
Speculation.
That's just my speculation.
Yeah.
So the judge did grant the temporary restraining order.
Yeah, why?
What the fuck?
Well, because it was like 4th of July week, you know, that entire week.
So it was basically— The family fathers would have wanted it this way.
Well, it was like, you know, June 28th, and they were trying to schedule something in like the following days.
And so he had requested the temporary restraining order June 30th.
The judge ended up not granting it until July 6th, but essentially it stayed until that point in time.
There was some back and forth.
He ended up extending the TRO until July 28th because Gerber, he really put his foot down and said that they have not told me what I've done wrong.
Okay, gotcha.
And I need a bill of particulars.
Gold fringe on the flag and all that.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So it is true.
Like if you're willing to just flat out lie, you're going to buy some time with a judge because the judge, I think pretty reasonably is like going to say, well, what's the balance of harm of giving this person some days?
If these allegations are true, then like, holy shit.
Then he's gone.
Yeah.
And then, and then like, but if you've just lied, it is interesting, again, having some experience with this, the amounts Of the kinds of evidence that people are able to, that the judge is able to see, is really, initially, when you're just filing motions, it's just, yeah, you usually try to attach documents and stuff, but like, it's really, as we've seen, people who want to lie can really make stuff look the opposite of what it is in reality, because all you're doing is writing and attaching, or not attaching stuff.
Right.
And so now that makes more sense.
Okay.
Yeah, and I will say that ONU, you know, what I read to you was from their opposition to the TRO.
So they had provided those specifics to Gerber the entire time, but he was like really insistent he needed more information in order to prepare a proper defense during his hearing.
And so they went back and forth and back and forth for a bit, but essentially laid out the exact pieces of the faculty handbook that he had violated and which particular charge, you know, like allegation tied to that.
So they basically were asked to do more of the work, of course, and so they cross-referenced things for him and they said, here is what we are pursuing, charge one, charge two, charge three.
And here are the things that hit it and why.
Most people, when you say, don't be a fucking piece of shit, know what we mean.
But OK, all right, if you're really going to be a stickler, I can label these for you.
So they weren't starting the hearing until July 28th for whether or not he would be disciplined by way of being let go.
And a week prior to that, his attorney withdrew.
Wow.
Citing irreconcilable differences.
Now withdrew from what?
The case that he filed against the college.
So not the TRO.
Oh, that's right.
He filed.
He filed a complaint.
He did file a complaint.
OK, so I wasn't sure.
So in addition to the TRO, he filed a complaint that was what?
It was like breach of contract.
It was like I'm going to fire you.
A bunch of things.
Conversion, like basically anything you can think of.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So the attorney withdrew.
It was like a very short withdrawal statement saying irreconcilable differences.
And if the judge needed more information, he'd be happy to talk about it.
Gerber objected, filed an official objection in the docket on the record, but the judge granted it and said that it was well pled and because of attorney-client confidentiality, he trusts that the attorney is making those decisions and won't go into it further.
Meaning he's fine with the lawyer leaving?
Yes, he's fine with the lawyer leaving.
So then Gerber has to find another lawyer.
He does find another lawyer, and ONU is working with him this entire time to line up the hearing date, right?
Because now Scott doesn't have a lawyer to represent him for this hearing.
So they, you know, they do, they're doing their best.
Everything is being, from my perspective, from the school's neck of the woods, I feel like they're pursuing it in good faith.
They're making sure that he's represented, you know, especially because this thing is now in a court of law.
I'm sure they're like, yeah, we're not going to be careful.
Yeah, we're not going to mess anything up here.
So a lot of back and forth that continues to go on.
The hearing happens and he has his new attorney and stuff.
And they're continuing also with like the complaint simultaneously.
And then the hearing, you know, their finding is obviously that he's going to be let go.
Yeah.
No surprise there.
But what was interesting then is shortly thereafter, the hearing concluded, his second attorney withdrew.
Citing irreconcilable differences.
Hey, I wonder if this guy's a piece of shit.
Yeah, I want to read this one to you, actually, because this is, it's funny.
Counsel has been actively representing plaintiffs since July 23rd, 2023.
During that time, counsel has had many discussions with his client about how to proceed.
Over the last several months, it has become clear that counsel is completely unable to proceed because of irreconcilable differences with plaintiff and interference with undersigned counsel's independent legal judgment.
Whoa.
After consultation with ethics counsel, plaintiff's counsel has concluded that he is unable to fulfill his duties under the Ohio rules of professional conduct.
Which is client being, quote, a piece of shit.
No, yeah.
The ethics hotline is like, boy, that, yeah.
Hey, sounds like you have a piece of shit for a client.
Yep.
Okay.
That's what I thought.
It says, because of the impossibility of proceeding as counsel for the plaintiff, counsel moves this court to permit his immediate withdrawal.
That's awesome.
And then, you know, of course he can't provide any other details, but if necessary, undersigned counsel is willing to provide the court with these details in an in-camera meeting.
Also, if the last guy wants to join too, we could do a group call.
Let's call Taft.
And then he says, while Mr. Gerber may object to Undersigned Counsel's request to withdraw, Undersigned Counsel has provided Mr. Gerber with ample notice of this motion and complied with the requirements of professional conduct, etc., etc.
So he basically worked with Gerber to try and find other counsel being like, I'm leaving.
You cannot make me stay.
Boy, this guy sucks.
He really sucks.
That's rare.
I mean, lawyers will defend a lot.
Yep.
Lawyers will take your money for a lot of things.
It's pretty incredible to two for two, two in a row being like, I don't want your money.
That's amazing.
But you do know someone's gonna want his money.
Do you have any guesses who wants his money?
Rudy Giuliani.
Close.
Oh, the lady?
What's her name?
No, no.
Stephen Miller.
Oh, no way!
America First Legal.
They took his case.
So on January 23rd, 2024, America First Legal swooped in and they filed an amended complaint.
I just picture Stephen Miller's eyes glow.
You know how, like, in The Hobbit, Sting glows when there's, like, goblins nearby or whatever?
I just feel like Stephen Miller, when there's a real piece of shit around, his eyes glow and he's like, I must go to help another total racist piece of shit.
And then they find each other.
That's my headcanon, as they say, of how that happens.
Yeah, so this is just it's incredible.
I mean, the introduction.
Here we go.
Dr. Scott Gerber is an accomplished legal scholar and author.
He is also a libertarian, an opponent of racial, gender and ethnic preferences in hiring, and an expert on the jurisprudence of Justice Clarence Thomas.
I'm an expert on the jurisprudence of Justice Clarence Thomas.
It's just whatever the fuck he wants.
That's all it is.
There's not a lot of reasoning.
You know, he's a he's an asshole.
This puts Dr. Gerber dramatically out of step with the politics of academia generally, and defendant Ohio Northern University in particular.
Dr. Gerber should be free to argue for his heterodox views.
After all, Ohio Northern purports to value academic freedom.
Further, Dr. Gerber secured tenure protections more than a decade and a half ago.
So, despite Everything that's been going on for months.
Here we are a year later since the investigation from Taft kicked off and Gerber ignored all the emails and pretended like he didn't know how to pick up a phone and he refused to talk to anybody unless they gave him, you know, witness information, essentially.
Very Trumpian.
Here we are, literally a year later, and they are saying he is being attacked because of his views.
But what happened to the tenure hearing stuff in that time?
He was dismissed.
Oh, he was dismissed.
Oh, okay.
Sorry.
They recommended dismissal.
No.
Okay.
So he is dismissed.
Yeah.
Sorry.
That interview, that's a good point of clarification.
That interview was July of last year, 2023.
So it was just a month, six weeks later, probably from when he filed his complaint.
So it was really like the peak of him being able to tell his story.
And then all these things start coming through.
It's just incredible to me that America First Legal, you know, and I get lawyers are going to write what's going to try and help make the best case for their client, but literally like the docket is full of things saying this is wasting the court's time.
This is important and more again from my experience.
I'm not a lawyer, of course, but like from experience.
The best argument for your client, though, is not a fabrication of reality.
That actually isn't true.
It's probably gonna involve some light lying, but it's usually lying to make the terrible facts seem a little better.
It doesn't work to just go to a judge and be like, no, actually, the sky is red, gravity goes up.
That doesn't work.
That's not a good defense for your client.
That's a fake pretend thing that people think about lawyers, in my opinion.
Again, I'm not an expert.
But I'm pretty sure that's true because unless you happen to get an Eileen Cannon, and that's a one out of thousands, you know, you get someone who's just dedicated to you personally and you're in their court.
Right.
If you get someone who like actually is a judge of any caliber, they're pretty good at being like, oh, you're making up a whole reality that's not real.
Like that doesn't work.
And it's all like in the initial pages too, like you don't have to read very far.
It's like a documented, yeah, exactly.
But they're continuing even the line about removing him from his classroom in the presence of students.
And they're not flat out saying that it was armed police officers that took him, but it says with support from armed police officers from 8-0 Ohio.
Like they could have called 911.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So, you know, this is something that is ongoing.
We do not have any sort of determination here yet, but America First Legal's on the case, so we know that we're gonna have a lot of fun, I guess.
And remind me, this is still just his complaint against them about the bullshit?
Yes, this is just his complaint against Ohio Northern University.
And so where we're at now is they are kicking off depositions.
So I think we're going to have a lot to look forward to with this one.
There's so much going on, and they have a bunch of the America First Legal guys that are pro-hawk.
They just got admitted to practice for that.
But I've been keeping an eye on this docket, and it's been a lot of fun.
Also, fun note, this is in Harding County out of Kenton, Ohio.
And if you search Gerber, almost all the results are from Scott Gerber because, as they said, he's a litigious And he had previously sued the school, as I mentioned, for this belief that he had that they were withholding retirement benefits from him.
So they had an entire look into that.
It was like a federal claim for that specifically.
But he also had one going back to 2005 that I was like, what is this?
Because I have to know more about this guy.
And this is relevant.
It's Scott Gerber versus Blish and Kavanaugh.
And I saw that there was an initial filing and then there was an appeal.
So he lost the first one and he appealed.
But basically the fact pattern is the same.
There was a law firm that represented him.
back in the early 2000s in a case where he was suing based on discrimination.
They recommended that he settle.
And between that and the fees he was charged, Gerber was not happy and he terminated the relationship.
He had another attorney supposedly examine the bills.
And he said the other attorney was like, yeah, looks like you overpaid.
And through the documents I was looking at, it looked like $62.
Oh, my God.
So I don't know exactly what happened there.
But anyway.
That's not even an increment of lawyer money.
I know.
It's a joke.
That's like when the gas station charges $4.99 and 9 tenths of a cent.
That's what $62 is.
I don't even know if it's that relative to legal bills.
Jesus fucking Christ, dude.
How much it costs to have the other lawyer look at the bills?
$10,000.
I'm not even joking.
But he sued them for a number of things, and Blish and Kavanaugh filed a motion to dismiss.
They're a law firm because they're based out of Rhode Island, and he was filing in Ohio, where he lived at the time when he signed the agreement.
The firm is in Rhode Island.
The discrimination case was in Rhode Island regarding a school in Rhode Island during Gerber's time while he was teaching in Rhode Island as a visiting law professor.
And so the court was like, yeah, we can't do anything about this.
You're going to have to take it up in Rhode Island.
But he appealed and it went nowhere on appeal either.
What's interesting about this case, though, Gerber had He applied for a full-time position at Roger Williams University, another private, religiously-affiliated school in their college of law, and he didn't get it.
And so he decided he didn't get it because he was discriminated against for being a white man.
I bet, yeah.
And the person that it was going to go to was not a white man.
And so that's the reason he didn't get the job.
Well, I'm on his side now.
That all makes sense.
Yeah.
So they filed the suit for him in Rhode Island, August 4th, 2003, and then they withdrew when he was like, you're overcharging me by $60, and they filed their withdrawal October 2nd, 2003.
Are you serious about that?
I will look through it again.
That's the most unbelievable part of this.
That's all I could see.
Wow.
So, you know, going back to 2003, and he probably was a piece of crap before this, too, but starting in 2003, over 20 years ago, he had a problem with DEI.
He thinks it cost him a job.
He truly, truly thinks it cost him a job at Roger Williams University.
And ever since then, he talks about it constantly.
One of the folks that actually ended up leaving Ohio Northern University because he just didn't want to be around him anymore served on the hiring committee, and he was a junior law professor.
Scott was like saying, oh, no, you need to change this, this, this.
This is how you should run the committee.
You shouldn't consider applications from this.
Otherwise, you're doing illegal things, illegal hiring practices, et cetera, et cetera.
And just really like going after this guy.
And then he was like, I can't do it anymore.
And he left and he teaches somewhere else now.
But he really just has an axe to grind when it comes to DEI.
And he's holding tight to that story to this day.
Imagine saying that they discriminated against me for being a white guy.
You know how I know?
The person they gave the job to, not a white guy.
Yeah, I know.
So there can't be other races, I guess.
I was trying to find so much more about that, because I would have loved to see Roger Williams University's response.
It's one of those things where if you don't get a job, be careful about if you really want to ask why you didn't get the job or not, because you are going to find out.
I really, really wish I could find it, but I can't, about why he didn't get it.
He just seems like a piece of crap anyway, so could just be based off of that.
There is a GoFundMe, if anyone is listening and wants to donate towards Scott Gerber's legal fund.
It started before he was escorted from class, by the way.
Oh my god.
Weird, he just wants to start it for no fucking reason.
Absolutely no reason.
Another professor started it for him, a friend of his.
March 22nd, 2023 is when this launched and it's doing okay.
Hold on, what is this for?
Under the theory that he was being investigated and didn't know what he was being investigated for.
So they stuck to that.
So pathetic.
God, it's the most pathetic fucking thing.
What a child.
Oh, actually, it's interesting.
Yeah.
So all the narrative of it has all been updated to reflect the lawsuit now.
But I can't- Hey guys, actually, it turns out I was a piece of shit.
My bad.
Still need your money though, because gotta defend against being a piece of shit.
Yeah.
But that is, okay.
Under the theory that, you know, again, you were marched out, frog marched out by Jack Buddha thugs for no, and you have no idea.
First you've ever even heard anything about this.
Well, I do have a GoFundMe already set up because I'm being investigated, but that is also a secret.
Yeah.
No fucking way.
Who would be dumb enough to believe all that?
Yeah.
I mean, he has over $11,000 in this random legal fund.
And I mean, yeah, he's talking to... Well, that'll buy you one bill review.
Yeah.
The Federalist Society is watching this.
So they just recently did a litigation update, which is nonsense.
I think this is something that could eventually be covered a little more mainstream and we might be ahead of the curve.
Because of Stephen Miller?
Because of Stephen Miller, yeah.
And this is just, like, the fire is still on Ohio Northern University's case about this.
Really?
No, thefire.org?
Yeah.
Come on, man.
People are really buying into this thought that, like, it's because he likes Clarence Thomas too much.
Yeah.
And that's why he's being kicked out of here.
Definitely a law school would try to fire somebody who's tenured Under the reasoning that he likes Clarence Thomas too much.
That definitely happens.
Yeah.
So the GoFundMe is amazing.
It has a link to a bunch of media on this.
What are some of the perks?
Nothing.
You get to join the likes of Lawrence Jarvik, who has donated multiple times.
He did a $10—and he interviewed him as well on his YouTube channel, which is hilarious because there's a technical difficulty that he's like, I'll edit this out, and it's not edited out.
It's the whole thing, and they're just sitting there in silence for, I don't know, four minutes.
It's amazing.
But he gave him, you know, multiple donations, and one of the more recent ones was $10 two months ago, and it says, Happy Birthday, Dr. Gerber.
So, there you go.
Oh my god, that guy sucks.
That is amazing.
That is, wow, that is fun.
I'm gonna keep refreshing the docket too, like I have to know.
You know, there's updates in the Killborn docket that actually we may get to soon, so.
We just have a collection of asshole dockets, that's fun.
We do, I know, I need to start a spreadsheet.
Some people have, you know, hobbies and lives and, you know, we just sit and wait.
Asshole dockets.
Yes!
Oh my gosh.
Well, that was a pleasure.
Well done.
Thanks so much.
And hey, if you'd like to support us keeping an eye on the asshole dockets, please go to patreon.com slash weatherswoke.
