Sexual Harassment

A Professor Tried To End a Flirty Email Exchange With a Young Woman. Then She Threatened to Blackmail Him.

When the grad student threatened to publicize their embarrassing correspondence, he reported her. But the university decided he was the villain.


It began, unlike most epic love stories featuring two cosmically intertwined souls rediscovering their connection from some past life, in the printer room of the University of New Mexico's Anderson School of Management.

It ended with a graduate student attempting to blackmail a professor into continuing their flirtatious banter, a sexual harassment investigation that treated the blackmailer as a victim, and, ultimately, a one-year unpaid suspension for the professor.

The professor made serious mistakes. He shouldn't have let the conversation become romantic and sexual—an exchange he actively participated in. He shouldn't have floated the possibility of hiring the student for a low-paid research position—an opportunity she initially expressed interest in taking, then turned down, and then used against him when he rebuffed her, according to documents obtained by Reason.

But the professor and the student never slept together. She never worked for him, and she never took one of his classes. They never even met in person, except for their initial five-minute introduction.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has taken the professor's case, and it is urging the university to reverse course.

"The university reached conclusions that defied reason and were completely at odds with all of the established facts of the case," attorney Samantha Harris, a vice president of FIRE, tells Reason.

His name was Nick Flor. A tenured professor at the university, he had taught information systems and digital marketing for the past 17 years. He was in his 50s, married with kids.

Her name, for the purposes of this article, was Julia. (I have changed it to protect her anonymity.) She was a graduate student in her 30s. She was fond of hummingbirds, flowers, and astrology.

Julia knew someone who had taken one of Flor's classes some years back, and when she saw him in the School of Management, she took the opportunity to introduce herself. It was a fleeting encounter that lasted all of five minutes, but Julia followed it up with an email to Flor the next day—May 10, 2018. She asked whether he was teaching any classes in the fall.

"I am glad we crossed paths the other day…." she wrote, ending the thought with ellipses, as was her habit. "It was likely meant to happen, as are most if not all things in the Universe….."

Flor wrote back that he would not be teaching in the fall, but would be happy to chat with her about her academic interests.

Over the next two months, Julia sent Flor 3,258 emails and 174 text messages. Flor sent 2,218 emails in response—though his replies were usually shorter—and 11 text messages. Reason obtained and reviewed all of these messages.

The content of Julia and Flor's correspondence became romantic, and then sexual. Julia sent Flor romantic songs, love horoscopes for their signs, and called him "babe." She suggested cuddling, he suggested kissing, she expressed a desire for it to lead to something more, and so on.

Flor says he eventually realized what he was doing was wrong—among other issues, he was married—and tried to de-escalate matters. When he stopped responding to her messages as often as she would have liked, she threatened him. When he appealed to his department for help, he became the subject of an investigation. And after a procedure that he says violated his due process rights, he was found guilty of quid pro quo harassment.

Flor says he knows he shouldn't have let the relationship develop the way it did. "I can't excuse my behavior," Flor tells Reason. "I exercised poor judgment."

But he's apoplectic at the idea that his conduct could be deemed sexual harassment, when the harassment—as evidenced by the full investigative file, which was obtained by Reason—went in the other direction.

"They're treating me like I'm Harvey Weinstein," he says.

Julia told the university's investigators that she did not harass Flor, that it was he who pushed their conversation into sexually explicit territory, and that she felt compelled to keep it up because she worried not doing so would negatively impact her educational opportunities.

"I believe that Professor Flor should be fired," Julia wrote in her victim impact statement. "Going through this process, and in particular, being the subject of retaliatory action and conduct by an instructor for exercising my civil rights has been nothing short of excruciating, daunting, and overwhelming. I have had to witness and endure, first-hand, the reality and influence of the power dynamic a faculty member inevitably and undeniably has over a student."

Through her attorneys, she declined to comment for this article.

After the encounter in the printer room, Julia began earnestly conversing with Flor electronically. She was quick to stress that she believed their meeting was destiny and that it would be foolish to "take such synchronicity for granted."

Flor's initial responses were polite but curt. He provided answers to her questions about which classes she should take, whether she should go to law school, what the university's Organization, Information and Learning Sciences program was like, and other things.

Within a few days, Julia had shared that she was nearly killed in a car accident years ago and that she possessed lingering pain because of it.

"I'm a licensed therapist, in my own healing journey, but yet still," she wrote, "cannot find anyone to help me heal or feel better…."

Julia also expressed an interest in gossiping about other faculty members­—hidden insights, she claimed, that Flor would find "hilarious, intriguing, and mysterious." Flor suggested switching to their personal email addresses or Google Hangouts for such conversations. One of her first messages was a picture of a male faculty member and an attractive woman standing next to each other on a golf course. Julia had circled the woman's breasts, and the man's crotch area, suggesting there was something going on between them.

Soon Julia was drawing hidden connections everywhere. She found it interesting that Flor had tweeted about hummingbirds right after she had seen—and attempted to photograph—precisely such a creature. Flor replied that this was bewildering. "Wow, maybe it wasn't chance that we met," he wrote back, adding a "haha."

But Julia seemed to think this was no laughing matter. "I really don't think you know how synchronous this all really is," she wrote, sending him a picture of a hummingbird landing on a yellow flower. Flor pointed out that his last name meant flower, which pleased her.

email from Julia

Next came love songs—"Past Lives" by the musician Borns was a favorite—and horoscopes. Julia indicated that she expected Flor to actively interpret and respond to them, and she did not appreciate it when he failed to take them seriously enough. She became distraught when he referred to a psychic she admired as crazy, though for the most part Flor passively agreed with Julia that a mounting pile of evidence suggested they were connected in some way. Julia informed him that although he was 20 years her senior, they were actually both ageless—possibly having lived many lives before their current one.

email from Julia

Over the course of May, the conversation became steadily more romantic. Julia frequently referenced her pains, both physical and spiritual. Discussions of coping techniques led to a proposed massage and escalated from there. These were followed by sexually explicit, graphic messages—sent by both Flor and Julia.

"I don't even know what came over me," Flor says. By early June, he had realized he was making a terrible mistake, and it was time to wind down their romantic conversations.

email from Nick Flor
response from Julia

Julia was routinely sending lengthy declarations of love and descriptions of the kinds of emotional, physical, and spiritual pain she wanted him to help her heal. But by the beginning of June, she had noticed that he was barely responding to her emails.

"So what do you have against chatting with me?" she wrote, adding "just curious."

She accused him—in half a dozen separate emails—of killing the romance. He had broken her heart, she said, in this life and in her previous ones. She alternated sending messages contemplating suicide, and pictures of flowers.

During the month and a half of correspondence, Julia and Flor had briefly discussed the possibility of her working a few hours each week as his assistant doing data and analytics. As the messages make clear, he proposed using leftover money from a National Science Foundation grant, which came to a grand total of $703. That meant 35 total hours of work, spread out across 7 weeks.

They couldn't quite work out the logistics, and Julia declined the offer in a June 9 email. But a few days later, she asked about it again. By this point, Flor had quite sensibly decided to spend the money elsewhere, on new equipment, and told her so.

It was on June 24 that Julia made her first threat. She referenced Flor's boss, and asked what he would think if she sent the boss screenshots of their romantic correspondence. Flor stopped responding to her emails, so she began texting him.

"I'll also unfortunately keep on this til it's addressed," she said, referencing Flor's refusal to answer her. "I'm still relentless."

She also began stalking him on social media, sending him screenshots of a tweet he had liked. This tweet belonged to another female student.

"That's what made her go ballistic," Flor recalls.

The texts came at all hours of the day. On June 29, Julia texted him every few minutes, from 5:20 a.m. until 8:30 a.m. Over and over again, she repeated her threat to embarrass him by making public their earlier conversations.

text from Julia

Flor says he realized he could no longer ignore her threats, and felt he had no choice but to inform the university administration. He told his boss that he was experiencing harassing behavior from Julia, and his boss reported the matter to the university's Title IX office, which deals with gender and sex-based misconduct. Flor met with the university's compliance specialist on July 2. According to the investigative file, he told the specialist that Julia was harassing him because he would not pursue a relationship with her.

When Julia learned she was the subject of a Title IX investigation, she filed her own complaint, accusing Flor of quid pro quo harassment and retaliation. The university referred the matter to an independent investigator, who interviewed both parties over the next few weeks.

Flor had to come clean to his wife, something he described as "the hardest part of all of this." They talked about everything, and though his behavior damaged their relationship, Flor says they have stayed together.

"It's so hard to recover from," he says. "But I feel like our relationship is stronger now because we talk so much about it."

At the end of November, the independent investigator issued his preliminary findings, subject to comment from both Flor and Julia. Flor says at that point his attorney was optimistic.

Two weeks later, Flor learned that the university had taken the independent investigator off the case and replaced him with a woman, the interim Title IX coordinator at the university's Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). The documents informing Flor of this development included no explanation for it.

The interim Title IX coordinator then ruled that Julia had not sexually harassed Flor. In fact, her threats to publish their correspondence was "good faith civil rights protected activity," the coordinator wrote in her report. The coordinator went so far as to dismiss the idea that revenge played any part in Julia's decision making: Rather, "she presents as a very hurt individual grasping for some sort, any sort, of communication from a former lover." (Again, Flor and Julia had never had a physical relationship.)

Flor did not get off so easily. The report found him responsible for quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliation. In the OEO's view, Julia might have believed that she needed to send him sexual messages in order to get the research position—a classic example of quid pro quo harassment. Flor's decision to report Julia's threats constituted retaliation.

"They kept her retaliation complaint but threw away mine," says Flor. "They found me guilty. I don't see how."

The case went on for several more months, as Flor filed a series of fruitless appeals. Finally, in October 2019, it was time for sentencing. I spoke to Flor a few days before the hearing. He told me he was expecting to get off lightly: a 30-day unpaid suspension, perhaps. That had been the punishment, Flor recalled, when the university disciplined a football coach.

"It seems like that's the worst thing they do to you," says Flor.

On October 17, I received a frantic email from Flor. "It is worse than I ever imagined," he wrote. The university had suspended him without pay for a full year.

The university declined to comment about the case, replying instead with a boilerplate statement."The University of New Mexico abides by [university] policies and state and federal laws relating to disciplinary matters," a spokesperson wrote in an email to Reason. "It is our practice not to discuss individual personnel matters."

Julia would have preferred an even stronger sanction, according to her victim impact statement.

"Submission to the sexual advances were the basis of Professor Flor's offers of employment to me," she wrote in calling for his dismissal. "I was forced to make a decision: either 1) tolerate the increasing misconduct, sexual advances, and harassment from a professor in order to receive a Graduate Assistant/Project Assistant position and advance in my field and school of study, or 2) report the misconduct and policy violations. When I decided I had to report Professor Flor's conduct things went from bad to exponentially worse because he chose to use his might to fire numerous false and retaliatory statements and allegations against me."

Samantha Harris of FIRE believes the university has violated Flor's due process rights.

"This is one of the most egregious cases of university malfeasance that I have seen in my nearly 15 years with FIRE," Harris says. "The university found Professor Flor responsible with zero due process—no hearing, no opportunity to question his accuser—in a case where credibility was of critical importance."

It has become much more common over the last decade for universities to adjudicate misconduct—particularly sexual misconduct—in a manner that disregards due process. In 2011, the Obama administration's Education Department released a "Dear Colleague" letter that contained new requirements for publicly funded educational institutions. The department's Office for Civil Rights instructed colleges and universities to take sexual misconduct accusations much more seriously, and to investigate them using a framework that would minimize the possibility of retraumatizing the victim. This meant lowering the burden-of-proof threshold to a preponderance of the evidence, defining misconduct broadly as "any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature," and discouraging investigators from allowing cross-examination.

The result was that many schools stopped holding adjudicatory hearings altogether, and instead moved to a single-investigator model, in which one administrator would decide which witnesses to question, produce a report based on these interviews, and then recommend a finding. Such procedures give accused parties very little opportunity to present evidence on their behalf.

Last year, under the guidance of Sec. Betsy DeVos, the Education Department rescinded its previous guidance. But many universities have vowed to continue operating as if nothing has changed.

Flor's case is emblematic of this widespread abuse of the rights of accused students and professors. In a letter to the university, Harris wrote that the OEO's findings do not establish that Flor "implicitly or explicitly conditioned employment on submission to sexual conduct." On the contrary, FIRE points out, Julia declined the position after Flor had ceased his overtures. She was not interested in working with him if they were going to be mere work associates. Flor did not condition Julia's employment on a romantic relationship—Julia did.

FIRE's letter notes that Flor never received so much as a hearing, let alone an opportunity to cross-examine his accuser. He was not able to pose questions that a panel might ask of Julia. He was not able to present witnesses on his behalf—even though he knew of another professor who had received similar correspondence from Julia and would have been willing to appear on his behalf.

Indeed, documents forwarded to Reason by Julia's attorneys make reference to this other professor, Smith. (I have changed his name to protect his anonymity.) Julia had also accused of Smith of sexual misconduct following an email- and text-based relationship that failed to yield an employment offer for her, but OEO cleared Smith of wrongdoing. On October 8, Julia wrote to the university's board of regents, urging them to reverse this decision and sanction Smith. According to Julia, Smith broke off contact with her after his wife demanded that he do so.

"Professors must not dangle promises of job and project opportunities in front of a student with whom they are communicating with in a personal nature and then use their wife as an excuse to retract the offer and all communication," wrote Julia in her appeal. "This decision was based on sex/gender and directly violates University Policy."

Smith did not respond to a request for comment.

On November 13, Flor inquired about the outcome of a separate investigation: The university had also sought to determine whether he had violated Policy 2215, which deals with consensual relationships and conflicts of interest. This investigation had determined that Flor "did not exercise authority over a subordinate," since he had not been teaching, supervising, or evaluating Julia. In this case, he had been cleared.

But according to Flor, the university only belatedly informed him of this important fact after he asked about it. If he had been told in August, when the decision was reached, he could have cited the outcome in his appeals concerning the Title IX matter.

"I look at this as withholding exculpatory evidence," says Flor.

In the meantime, Flor can't even look for alternative long-term work. The University of New Mexico has a policy prohibiting employees from working at any other job for more than 39 days per year. Flor asked the administration if he still counted as an employee during the term of his suspension. He was informed that he did.

He's also worried that he will never again receive any grant money, since the OEO reported his Title IX violation to the National Science Foundation.

Flor is currently waiting for the outcome of another appeal. This "peer review" appeal, permitted under university policy, gives faculty members the power to review the appropriateness of a colleague's sanction. They could opt to lessen Flor's punishment, though his suspension—which goes into effect on January 1—is likely to begin before the faculty reach any kind of decision.

"FIRE will not rest until Professor Flor gets some justice in this egregious case," says Harris.

NEXT: House Reveals Articles of Impeachment Against Trump: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Her name, for the purposes of this article, was Julia. (I have changed it to protect her anonymity.)“

    What the hell for? You publish his name and enough details we can ensure why can bully every university until he never works again, but give her a pass because…?

    1. I noticed that too, and can only guess it’s related to

      Through her attorneys, she declined to comment for this article.

      1. Hear, hear! It seems to me that this article requires naming and shaming this creature. His embarrassing emails and texts are there for the world, yet an extortionist is protected because of her gender.

        Women demand equality, it’s time to give it to them.

        1. I think there are times to criticize Mr. Soave.

          This isn’t one of those times.
          He’s been to this kind of rodeo before, and he’s done good work.

          Just a reminder to my fellow critics:
          remember the Rolling Stone/U.V.A. story?

          Mr. Soave had a big part in blowing that story apart;
          let him do his work how he sees fit.
          He’s done this king of thing before;
          we haven’t.

          1. Additionally, with everyone frustrated at the dearth of good journalism these days,
            THIS IS IT!
            Right here!
            A journalist exposing corruption in our systems!
            C’mon! Hang up the complaints for one friggin’ day!

            1. To the young lady’s credit, at least she didn’t engage in unlawful “parody,”


              but her behavior was nonetheless highly inappropriate, and thus merits full disclosure. Here at NYU we would certainly not tolerate anything of the sort. Professor Flor’s name, on the other hand, should not have been mentioned and should in fact be expunged from the article, given his role as a distinguished figure in the field of the digital humanities.

              1. What was that case about? I forget…

                1. Some work that we did with prosecutors here at NYU to put a stop to illegal “satire” that was impinging upon our reputations and disrupting order and tranquility here on campus.

          2. Mr. Soave had a big part in blowing that story apart;

            Bull. Fucking. Shit. He reported the story in his usual ‘to be sure’ manner. The comments section tore him to pieces over a story that was transparent and flimsy on its surface and didn’t stand up to the slightest breeze. He slowly came around and gained notoriety when the journalist who fabricated the story, criticized him for disbelieving. Even then, his ‘to be sure’ equivocation and false moralizing is present in this story.

            We all know that Nick Flor has kids. The kids are completely innocent and have nothing to do with the article and anyone who wants to harass them can. Julia who is legally an adult and, whom Robby identifies as a blackmailer, gets the protection of relatively absolute anonymity.

            1. He slowly came around and gained notoriety when the journalist who fabricated the story, criticized him for disbelieving.

              That’s not quite what happened. Anna Merlan wasn’t the RS reporter for the story, she was just some random wine-soaked content provider on Jezebel who mocked Robby Goodhair for not having a journalism degree from Columbia, therefore he wasn’t qualified to question the narrative. She later had to eat shit and go on the record admitting she was wrong, and actually say “I apologize.” That was probably a first in that stupid blog’s entire history.

              Obviously, it was clear to anyone that the “rape” story was more akin to a rejected script for an episode of SVU, but I’m not going to dunk on Robby for taking his time to verify everything in that case.

              1. Anna Merlan wasn’t the RS reporter for the story, she was just some random wine-soaked content provider on Jezebel who mocked Robby Goodhair for not having a journalism degree from Columbia, therefore he wasn’t qualified to question the narrative.

                Right and fair.

                Obviously, it was clear to anyone that the “rape” story was more akin to a rejected script for an episode of SVU, but I’m not going to dunk on Robby for taking his time to verify everything in that case.

                You’re assuming principles and good faith. After the Kavanaugh hearings I see no evidence of such. Robby’s journalistic indifference or objectivity is/was indistinguishable from a reluctant #MeToo sympatico caught tacitly agreeing with a lie and his cleaving to the truth marginally preceded the media at large, was largely precipitated by having nothing to lose, and was quickly reversed and the reversal reinforced/reiterated.

        2. great comment

    2. Yeah I’m kinda pissed at reason for this. This woman blackmails someone and Reason protects her… because she’s a woman? Fuck that. If they want to make sure the Professor takes his lumps publicly for being a moron, they can shame her too for doing stuff that is way worse.

      Way to infantilize the woman, Reason. You’re just like the university. Glad I didn’t donate.

      1. +1

        Although they’re not quite “just like the university”, because at least they are exposing this corruption to the public. But they still buy into the underlying narrative that women are weak and should enjoy a special protected status. That is not a humanist viewpoint and is not “reason”able.

    3. We will also be protecting the anonymity of the Spahn Ranch murderers so, for the purposes of this article the mastermind will be referred to as Marles Chanson.

    4. Ha. After reading that parenthetical I shot straight to the comments to verify it would be the first thing addressed here. I don’t know, is there a liability concern here?

      1. I don’t know, is there a liability concern here?

        Fuck Nick Flor’s kids.

      2. If we weren’t angry here, then would we even exist?

          1. Damn it! Where’s the fully semi-automatic upvote button with the extended magazine and a narwhale horn attachment when you need it?

    5. The university presumably has told people involved (like Flor) that they can’t reveal her name to the public, so if Reason did so it hurts Flor’s chance at keeping his job.

      1. Wait, you think that makes sense? Because you just hung two totally unrelated things together like they are related.

    6. While I would have published her name in their place, the reason they publish his and not hers seems obvious enough: he wants to be named.

    7. Very good article from Robby.
      Actual journalism that stands in stark contrast to Reason’s typical standards.
      But yea, protecting “Julia’s” identity is annoying.
      I’m guessing necessary to avoid a law suit.
      Proves again, as always, that terrorism works

    8. Yeah wtf… “Read about the bullshit situation where the university treated the blackmailing victim as the perp, and,by the way here’s his identity and were protecting the blackmailer.”
      Fuck that, I’m going to go try to find it and post it here.

      1. Exactly. If Reason’s thesis is to be believed, the professor is the victim here, so why are they protecting the perpetrator? That makes zero sense.

    9. Because he is scared shitless of her.

  2. Follow Pence’s example. Would Pence have been caught in this spiral of deceit? Pence would have remained chaste in spirit and deed.

    Or Jimmy Carter, who admitted to sinful thoughts not of Rosalyn.

    1. “Hey Mike, why is someone always cc’d on your emails?”

  3. Her name, for the purposes of this article, was Julia. (I have changed it to protect her anonymity.)

    So her anonymity is worthy of protection… why?

    1. Because he gave the ok, while she lawyered up:

      Through her attorneys, she declined to comment for this article.

      1. Seems to me you’re making the assumption that’s why, because the article doesn’t say that’s why she’s remaining anonymous. The article states that they did to maintain her anonymity, not because they aren’t able to because she has a lawyer.

        1. If everybody accused of wrong-doing could remain anonymous on the grounds that they’ve lawyered up, nobody would ever have heard of Jeffrey Epstein and OJ would still be known as a football player.

        2. I’m *guessing* that’s why. That’s how conversation works. You’re the one assuming that Reason is acting in bad faith, and assuming that I’m assuming.

          1. I do wish Reason or Robbie would address this question, though. I’m always intrigued (often concerned) when the media chooses to protect someone’s identity. She’s in her thirties, it’s not like she’s a juvenile, or even a pseudo-juvenile (i.e., an undergrad). She thinks this was serious enough that she wanted a guy fired. He thinks it was serious enough that he wanted her sanctioned, somehow. Reason has ample evidence of what both parties actually did. So if it’s a legit news story–and I think it is–then why protect anyone’s anonymity. If she thinks there’s nothing wrong with what she did, she (or her lawyers) should be able to explain it. People won’t all agree, but that’s life. No?

            1. I think she is pretty juvenile.
              And also a walking case for mental health assistance on campus.

              1. “She was a graduate student in her 30s.”

                1. Well that’s not a contradiction.

                2. A Professor Tried to End a Flirty Email Exchange With a Young Woman.

                  I can call a woman in her 30’s a “young woman”, Robbie can’t.

                  And neither can the university – while they may refer to college students as “children”, they sure as hell can’t presume their gender.

                  1. I can call her a young whippersnapper.

                    And speaking of whippersnappers, I have to go to my appointment with Madame de Sadist. I’ve been naughty and I need a taste of the whip. Yum!

              2. I think she targeted him b/c he’s not socialist.

            2. University policy probably forbids the revealing of either parties name, at least without their consent. Since Reason would have gotten her name from Flor (though they left it vague enough to believe that they might not know her name), if they revealed her name it demonstrates that he violated university policy quite flagrantly. That’s on a different level from the current problem and could cost him his job completely.

              1. “Since Reason would have gotten her name from Flor”

                Or other places, so your entire hypothetical fails. Again. Because its fucking dumb.

              2. If they agreed to provide her anonymity as a condition of speaking to Flor, then they should have said so. The way the article is written makes it sound like they’re protecting her because they feel like she should be protected.

        3. Soave is a kool aid drinking pussy.


      2. “Indeed, documents forwarded to Reason by Julia’s attorneys make reference to this other professor, Smith.”

        She didn’t decline all manner of comment though, did she?

      3. You: “Because he gave the ok, while she lawyered up”

        Also you: “I’m *guessing* that’s why.

        No. You stated it as fact, as if you knew what you were talking about. And then you backed up with the whole “I’m just guessing!” when I called you out on the fact that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    2. Her name, for the purposes of this article, was Julia. (I have changed it to protect her anonymity.) A “he said-she said” situation is a form of the Prisoner’s Dilemma game – whoever squeals first gets the benefit of the doubt and the respondent bears the burden of proof. Since he squealed first, he gets the benefit of the doubt and she is presumed guilty until proven innocent.

      Wait, no, that doesn’t explain the situation at all, does it? In fact, it’s completely backwards.

  4. “She was fond of hummingbirds, flowers, and astrology.”

    What’s that proscription about not sticking it in crazy, even virtually?

    1. I was coming here to write, we have evolved from “don’t stick it in crazy” to “don’t e-correspond with crazy.” Been guilty of it myself, but it’s crazy that the college doesn’t see who’s crazy.

      1. it’s crazy that the college doesn’t see who’s crazy.

        Crazy, but entirely predictable. A woman complained so a man was punished.

        Title IX working as intended.

    2. And she started yammering about “past lives” and a psychic she was fond of. Yeah, this woman is a quack.

      If you ever meet a woman and she wants to take every single minute detail about you and claim there’s destiny involved, like this whacko, you need to get away.

      1. There was an overabundance of red flags with this one.

      2. They’re textbook red flags for Borderline, or some other Cluster B personality disorder. Idealization and devaluation is the behavior pattern. First they become infatuated way too fast, and start seeing their target as pure perfection. Their every thought revolves around how wonderful the person is. Then when the slightest thing goes wrong in the relationship, they throw it in reverse. Now the person is the devil incarnate. They’ve always been an abusive monster. Destroying their life becomes the new obsession. And if you let a disordered person like this stay in your life long enough, they’ll flip back and forth between the two endlessly. They’ll be sweet as sugar when they want you back, promising that they understand what they did wrong and that they’ll do everything they need to change, but they lie as easy as breathing. I’m lucky I’ve never met a person like this, but I’ve read enough personal accounts to recognize the pattern.

        1. Thanks for that. Sounds like this guy was the perfect setup for someone like that. Older married guy in a position of authority. Of course he is flattered and turned on.

          I have met people like this. The warning signs are all there in retrospect but they can be very manipulative.

  5. Man, this sucks. All the more reason to keep it 100% professional in the workplace or with anything job-related, unless you own the business. Hope he finds work soon.

    1. About 90% of the girls I dated admitted to banging a professor in college. There’s no other reason to have that job.

      1. Makes the degrees women get all the more iffy. Which would be fine in a free labor market where meritocracy and economic usefulness prevail, but even that’s being eroded by affirmative action.

    2. Of course, if you keep it strictly professional, you are denying the woman (real or imagined) full participation in the office culture.

      1. I mostly meant “non-sexual / non-romantic” by that.

    3. Especially if you own the business. Way more to lose than just your job.

    4. All the more reason to keep it 100% professional in the workplace or with anything job-related

      So, I should pay my wife for sex on the days I work from home, should that go on an expense report?

      Maybe you’re being sarcastic but she was a grad student, wasn’t studying under him, and wasn’t ever a student of his. It’s not 100% clear that they’re in the same department. It’s like saying “Keep things 100% professional in the workplace.” to someone who flirted with a loan officer at their business’s bank. The bank’s loan office isn’t my workplace and the loan officer is *an* employee but not *my* employee.

      1. Yeah, but there’s always possibility of corruption in these settings. She could give you preferential treatment in the loans if you had something intimate, just like the professor could give her special treatment freebies. These things hurt the business’ reputation when word gets out that you could get your way just by putting out to someone influential in them. So it makes sense for the owners to want to cut that short.

        1. Yeah, but there’s always possibility of corruption in these settings.

          The only way to avoid corruption in business, sexual or otherwise, is to have a business that doesn’t employ humans and, even then, data corruption would still take place.

          None of your employees are 100% professional and it’s easy to fire the one’s who are only 50%, but any policies enacted to bring the 80-90% up to compliance with 100% is just going to cause a significant portion, if not all of them to leave. The only policy that isn’t already on the books that would’ve prevented the above scenario would prevent Professors from talking to students about anything that wasn’t specifically class related.

          Maybe you’re just wishing advice to the professor or to the next professor but it would seem that they either don’t hear you or have heard you and almost explicitly don’t care.

  6. Professor and the student should maintain the decorum of the college and should keep the relation of student and teacher only.
    every one should learn the things from Haryana gk and should think about future.

    1. She wasn’t his student; he wasn’t her teacher.

      1. Just realized I responded to a spammer.

  7. He had broken her heart, she said…

    Hell hath no fury like an unaccountable, anonymous woman scorned.

  8. Women have all the pussy. What about that power dynamic, hmmmmmmm?

    1. The gays are so lucky.

      1. EVERYone’s got an asshole. Even Steven.

        1. EVERYone’s got an asshole.

          That’s just your opinion.

          1. Does it stink?

  9. A professor of information systems and digital marketing conducted a tawdry affair. Electronically.

    Honestly, he deserves to be suspended. He’s not qualified to teach the subject.

    1. I think in this case maybe he thought the permanent digital record would exonerate him.

      1. “sexually explicit, graphic messages—sent by both Flor and Julia.”

        He’s married.

        1. Why is that the school’s business? Are they the adultery police now?

          1. Bubba has a point. I’m really just thinking about his professional standing, but his case with the university aside, if you want to keep your shit secret from your wife, don’t send emails, texts or facebook posts.

            1. Which is what is kind of innocently weird about this case. He was no player. He only actually met her for five minutes and the rest was all texting. It was a fantasy game for him.

          2. He demonstrated a lack of electronic savvy.

    2. Honestly, he deserves to be suspended. He’s not qualified to teach the subject.

      What’s the required knowledge set for such a title? Yeah, it’s got information systems in the name but the latter half suggests that anyone even passably imitating Don Draper could hold the position.

      1. Matter of fact, ‘digital marketing’ and ‘School of Management’ leads me to believe that this ‘information systems’ expert’s password has a significant chance of being ‘password’ or ‘12345’.

        1. Could be ‘guest’ or ‘user.’

  10. For everyone asking why he was named while she was not: I only used real names in cases where I had that person’s permission. Professor Flor was willing to be named, presumably because he wanted the injustice of his case publicized.

    1. I have been an editor for many years. If Robby Soave had submitted this article to me without “Julia’s” name, I would have told him that was editorial cowardice and to run the name or I wouldn’t run the article. Why would we feature the anonymous claims of ANYONE about ANYTHING unless the article itself was about the injustice of such claims being entertained with NEITHER party identified?

      1. I’d hope that, at the very least, you’d have the good sense to omit the iterative faux pas where we get to learn about Flor’s kids and [anonymous person]’s interests in butterflies and astrology.

    2. So how does Trump respond when you ask his permission to use his name?

      1. Even bad people who do bad things to people *like* me deserve respect. Unless they’re from Florida, are named in a police report, do bad things *to me*, or their last name is Kavanaugh. – Robby Soave

    3. Hi Robby,
      Great read. Maybe you could just edit the article to include the lass’s real name ? Then everyone’s happy, including the great Thomas Lipscomb.
      Simple search and replace should do the trick. Replace all “Julia” / “Julia’s” with “______” (real name).
      If you have questions, reply to this comment.

      1. (Assuming they actually give you guys an edit button.)

        1. Ouch! Nice zinger!

    4. So you’re in the businesss of getting approval for narratives instead of doing actual reporting, got it.

      1. Should change your handle to Mayor Pete Buttplug, makes more sense.

    5. Robby – I bet you’d get less pushback if you just replace “…to protect her anonymity” with something like “…because keep reading and you’ll see why.”

      I know for me personally, I was initially irritated that you didn’t name her but by end of the story, I completely understood why. You don’t want to inadvertently unleash that level of crazy towards yourself and I honestly don’t blame you.

      1. I’d donate to a magazine that published the truth and combated crazy.

        Magazines and journalists that kowtow to powerless bullies, regurgitate propaganda, and assuage SJW pussies are cheaper than dime-a-dozen.

    6. Ah, the old “policies and procedures” excuse. Like a cop.

    7. That’s hardly enlightening. You should be explaining why you want someone’s permission. Withholding names in journalistic articles is not commonplace, especially when one is writing about someone that has acted improperly (your conclusion, not mine). You may have good reasons for your rule. Any chance we could hear them?

    8. No, that is not how journalism works.

    9. I appreciate your response. Its a weak response that shows that Reason doesn’t have much of a spine, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

  11. What professor in his right mind would get involved with a female student in any extra-professional way in 2019?

    1. As a rule of thumb, men thinking with their dick aren’t “in [their] right mind”.

      1. There’s sticking it in the possibly crazy, and sticking it in the near-to-guaranteed-crazy with professional consequences, up to and including prison time and a national #metoo outing.

        1. I think you guys are missing the whole “he never had sex with her” part.

          1. I’m curious what you think “thinking with [your] dick” means, that it matters whether or not they actually banged.

            1. Ah, I read it wrong. My mistake. I should have said “Diane Reynolds (Paul.)” instead of “you guys”.

    2. Clearly in the beginning it was professional, in a mentor role. But still. Don’t mentor crazy.

    3. A “information systems and digital marketing” professor. A married one, no less. As a computer nerd, it never occurred to him that there might be a second human female on the planet willing to touch his naked body.

    4. What choice did he have? IT WAS MEANT TO BE!!!

    5. Again, she was a student in the School of Management, right?

      I mean, hitting on a 30-yr.-old grad student who just happens to be at the same university is/should be more like playing with matches rather than playing with fire.

      It should be explicitly kept in mind that there wasn’t any physicality to the exchange. No sex, no dates, no drinks. It’s very much beyond Title IX and due process and slowly consuming free speech as well. He certainly was flirting, but there’s nothing to prevent the next case from being a situation where a flat out “No, I refuse to stick it in crazy again.” can be interpreted (at least) two ways.

  12. She did this to another professor who was found innocent and she’s still at the same school? WTF.

    Is this administrative lawfare an income scam looking for settlements? Or does she view herself as some sort of Title IX warrior testing whether men act as she thinks they should? Or is she seeking revenge for the patriarchy.

    over the next two months, Julia sent Flor 3,258 emails

    That’s 50+ emails a day. How could he not understand this was not going to end well? It’s not enough not to stick your dick in crazy. You have to stay way from it completely.

    1. Unless she’s also suing them in civil court, I don’t see how she’s getting money out of this. So I’m going to just guess a vindictive personality.

      1. Unless she’s also suing them in civil court

        That’s the point. If the school punishes him it’s an admission he did something wrong. She alleged damages in her victim statement. Maybe she’s just threatening to sue rather than suing but her pursuing it more than once is pretty bizarre. That I would like to know more about – and also whether this kind of thing is going on elsewhere.

        1. She has no civil case. She’s doing it because she’s a woman scorned.

          1. She has no civil case.

            Maybe, maybe not. Regardless if she’s trying to lure male professors into relationships to sue their schools her failure to do so in this case doesn’t disprove her motive.

  13. I really wish articles like this did a better job in presenting the timeline. They skipped over the year in most of their date references, so you have to piece together that the independent investigator, and that investigator being replaced, was in 2018, not 2019.

    Would it really be so hard to give a summary timeline at the end? Something like…
    9 May 2018 – Julia and Flor meet, for the first and only time, in person.
    10 May 2018 – Julia initiates online correspondance.
    October 2018 – Independent investigator replaced with Title IX Coordinator
    November 2018 – Initial ruling against Flor
    August 2019 – Cleared of other charges
    October 2019 – Sentencing

    It’d clear up a lot of the stuff that gets jumped in the rhetoric.

    That editorial complain aside, and assuming this reporting is accurate†, excusing the blackmail attempt and then punishing him for reporting the blackmail is pretty egregious. Policies/decisions should never support “paying” the blackmailer, and this decision seems to be saying that he should have just “paid” her. Regardless of his other actions, that should be pretty clear.
    †Which I’m only doing for the purpose of conversation. Reason has a pretty bad track record of including important context and facts.

  14. It’s almost as if moral failings can lead to real world consequences.

  15. >>His name was Nick Flor.

    he was Italian. he *is* Italian.

    1. “WOP’s up? How’s your dago?”

      1. See if I were you there’d be a po-faced paragraph about the struggles and prejudice Italians faced in the US, but thank god I’m not you and can tell what a joke is, even if it is shitty.

        1. You didn’t make a joke. You make a pun. And a poor one at that. So excuse the fuck out of me for assuming you are one of those who shouts from the rooftops “Hillary won the popular vote! Get rid of the Electoral College!” Because that was the more likely meaning of your sentence.

    2. Flower in Italian is fiore. Nick is a spic.

      1. yeah i was using a quote from “I Love You to Death” to point out Robby killed the hero of the story …

  16. Kind of draconian punishment for stupid behavior that ultimately harmed no one, except perhaps his marriage. Being married and roughly the same age as the prof I can understand being intrigued by a younger woman’s showing you some romantic interest (even if you have no intention of actually doing anything about it) but this means that in the event something similar happens to moi will keep it strictly business lest the lass prove to be a vindictive psycho

    1. >>keep it strictly business

      keep it unelectronic.

      1. In private would have been far worse for him. And phone calls would have led to a he said, she said, with him not having any proof of how crazy she is.

  17. If she breathes…

  18. And the world is full of other women complaining that men are hard to get to know, and/or communicate with.

    Well, my darlings, it is all your fault for tolerating this kind of blatant bullshit.

    Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

  19. Don’t put your phone in crazy.

    This guy certainly seems like he lacks the judgement necessary for his position. The sexy emails intertwined with emails about employment were just stupid, and he is probably guilty of some violations of the university policy.

    “Flor’s decision to report Julia’s threats constituted retaliation.”

    This strikes me as pretty clear retaliation by the University.

  20. I agree with the complaints about due process and a biased process.

    But just the things that Flor admits to (2000+ romantic/sexual e-mails to an enrolled student, combined with discussions of employment) merit *at least* a one year unpaid suspension. I’ve seen multiple colleagues full up terminated, after a fair hearing, for way less than this.

    And one reason universities have rules against this stuff – completely aside from the ethical problems and the federal requirements – is that it leaves the professor open to exactly this type of blackmail.

    1. And one reason universities have rules against this stuff – completely aside from the ethical problems and the federal requirements – is that it leaves the professor open to exactly this type of blackmail.

      But the rules themselves (and the enforcement bureaucracy) are what *create* the blackmail possibility. Otherwise the worst the crazy coed could threaten would be to tell the prof’s wife.

      1. I think you’re under-estimating the blackmail potential of “I’ll tell your wife”.

        1. It seems Flor was somewhat less frightened of that possibility since, in the process of reporting her blackmail, he also came clean to his wife.

    2. I agree with the complaints about due process and a biased process.

      OK, then consider me to be filing a complaint on free speech grounds.

      But just the things that Flor admits to (2000+ romantic/sexual e-mails to an enrolled student, combined with discussions of employment) merit *at least* a one year unpaid suspension. I’ve seen multiple colleagues full up terminated, after a fair hearing, for way less than this.

      Moreover, I’m calling bullshit or, at the very least, if you know multiple colleagues full up terminated under such horseshit, then you know multiple professors (of varying degrees) and/or couples who were (e.g.) post-doc/grad students together. I spent very little time actually in grad school and plenty of time tacitly associated with grad schools and there were plenty of relationships that fell well within the guidelines of ‘teaching and enrolled’ or ‘supervisor and employee’ at the same university. And if I broaden ‘relationships’ to merely ‘flirtatious sexy talk’ the number of such ‘relationships’ likely jumps into the hundreds.

      Again, it needs to be kept in mind that in this situation we clearly have a case where he was actively participating in the flirting but there’s nothing preventing the next case from being one where he says “No means no.” and she asserts “No means yes.”

      1. Yeah, we are not talking about some deer-in-the-headlights 18 year old freshman. We are not even talking about a 25 year old grad student. She’s in her 30’s. That’s definitely old enough to make your own decisions about who to hook up with – even some dude who has a good job.

        He had no power over her at all – not even in an oblique sense. There’s nothing inappropriate about such a relationship. (meaning a professor and an adult grad student in another department) At that point they are just two adults who work/study in the same very large community.

        1. Also, and I’m not big on the self-aggrandizing grad-student-as-victim narrative but, you’d quickly get into situations where you’re enforcing de rigueur policies that are as bad or worse than slavery and would only avoid being overt slavery because you’re paying grad students *and* educating them.

          Pretty much insisting that they work every waking hour (and then some) *and* unlike actual slaves, forbidding them from having even the slightest sexual interest in the only people you “allow” them any interaction with in their (professional) “lives”? OK, as long as you pay them a paltry sum?

          1. Oh, no! You are talking about real grad students. She’s in the business school.

            During grad school I worked 18 hours a day in the lab. But I did get an $800 a month stipend, so there is that!

  21. This proves that all sexual harrassment allegations by all female college students are bogus setups and should be ignored, right?

    1. This proves that all sexual harrassment allegations by all female college students are bogus setups and should be ignored, right?

      It takes a special kind of stupid to believe other people think this.

    2. Is anyone even remotely arguing this point?

      This shows that it’s difficult for males to get justice if they are the victims of untoward sexual behavior through the Title IX office because the process is weighted against them. It doesn’t mean males never do anything wrong.

  22. “For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil: But her end is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a twoedged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps take hold on hell. Lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life, her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them. Hear me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from the words of my mouth. Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house: Lest thou give thine honour unto others, and thy years unto the cruel: Lest strangers be filled with thy wealth; and thy labours be in the house of a stranger; And thou mourn at the last, when thy flesh and thy body are consumed, And say, How have I hated instruction, and my heart despised reproof; And have not obeyed the voice of my teachers, nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me! I was almost in all evil in the midst of the congregation and assembly. Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well. Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets. Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee. Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger? For the ways of man are before the eyes of the LORD, and he pondereth all his goings. His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins. He shall die without instruction; and in the greatness of his folly he shall go astray.”

    -Proverbs 5:3-23 (KJV)

    1. “That bitch crazy”
      – Lots of rappers

      1. ^ that. Sums up the whole thing.

  23. The professor made serious mistakes. He shouldn’t have let the conversation become romantic and sexual—an exchange he actively participated in.

    He “shouldn’t have let”? Did she ask for affirmative consent or are we holding him responsible for actions that aren’t his own.

    I suppose now Congress needs to pass a section 230 of Title IX to be the 1A of school speech codes so that we aren’t holding 3rd parties unduly responsible for speech that isn’t their own.

    1. Yes. He shouldn’t have let.

      He can’t control her. But he controls how he responds. So she gets flirty, and he doesn’t get flirty back.

      1. Yes. He shouldn’t have let.

        He can’t control her.

        So, no. He shouldn’t have let it go on or become more romantic but he can’t possibly prevent her from initiating a romantic conversation without violating Title IX and preemptively refusing sexy conversations from people who might tempt him in advance.

        1. He doesn’t have to respond.

          1. In which case it should be said that his mistake was responding in kind or entertaining any overtures she was making, not flatly stating that any conversations she initiated or topics she broached were his his mistake.

            I mean, FFS, how do *we* (rational libertarians) fault him for initiating any/all conversations and find YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, Paypal, and Google ‘protected by section 230’ in any/all conversations whether they initiated them or not? He didn’t even ‘ban her Alex Jones’, ferchristssake.

            1. In which case it should be said that his mistake was responding in kind or entertaining any overtures she was making […]

              Colloquially known as “letting the conversation become romantic and sexual”?

              […] not flatly stating that any conversations she initiated or topics she broached were his his mistake.

              Which wasn’t stated.

              Your objection is semantic and definitional, and a poor one. There is no ambiguity or confusion.

              1. Your objection is semantic and definitional, and a poor one. There is no ambiguity or confusion.

                “You’re argument is based on the definitions of words which don’t mean what I think they mean, your argument is poor, I know I’m right.”

                Good work there, e.e., you’ve got me convinced.

      2. Are you serious? Are you so simple minded that you think that flirting needs to lead to sex?

        Adults flirt with each other all the time. It’s fun. It’s flattering. It brings them closer. That doesn’t mean they go on to having sex.

        1. I’m professional enough to recognize contexts where it’s inappropriate, regardless of whether you have any intent to act on it.

          1. I’m professional enough to recognize contexts where it’s inappropriate, regardless of whether you have any intent to act on it.

            That’s funny because, through this whole thread, you’ve done a decent job of convincing me otherwise. At the very least, you’ve given me plenty of ammunition to conclude that you’re no better at intuiting semantics and other people’s intents any more than myself and maybe even Flor.

  24. Applause for UNM! Good to know that they teach the proven science of synchronicity at the *other* Anderson School Of Management.

  25. According to his twitter, he claims to be very tech and social media savvy.


  26. Why does she, and not he, deserve anonymity?

  27. “She was fond of hummingbirds, flowers, and astrology.”

    Stop right there. He should have known he was dealing with crazy right then and there.

    1. Yeah, it was his mistake for letting conversations become floral and astrological.

    2. You’re saying it was in the stars that it wouldn’t work out?

  28. Without the article as context, I would have thought her text was a suicide note.

  29. Professor For has been in the trenches since GamerGate. He really should know better than to get into a situation like this.

    1. Well… he only met her for 5 minutes. So his crazy/drama radar isn’t properly calibrated. But at 50 years old and long married, it was probably pretty rusty.

      This woman preyed upon a dude who was in a vulnerable moment in his life. We have additional evidence of this because she did it to another dude at the same place. He entertained the thought for a while, then dismissed it.

      She’s not just an adult – a woman in her 30’s is no wilting flower in need of protection from conversations with adult men. She knew full well what she was up to and was in the position of power in the relationship from the jump.

  30. Most pathetically he never even got laid yet still blew his life up by not walking away as soon as she started talking about astrology and how their meeting was “fate.” She must have been pretty hot.

    1. She snagged 2 similarly situated dudes with this gambit. I’d say she’s pretty good at spotting a mark and pretty good at flirting and finding things that her mark wants to hear.

      1. “I’d say she’s pretty good at spotting a mark and pretty good at flirting and finding things that her mark wants to hear.”

        I’d be out at “I have stories for centuries and ions, my friend…”

        I’d be afraid she was going to start into them, and I don’t have ions to spare…

        1. I take ions with a grain of salt.

  31. I predict that A) The Professor will be able to retire early on the damages he will receive and B) The administration drones and academic hacks responsible for this cluster-grope will face no consequences to mention.

    1. Especially B.

      When appartchiks successfully immunize themselves from consequences, they start bonfires out of institutional cash because it looks pretty. Why not? Other People’s Money.

      Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy:
      In any bureaucracy, the people devoted to the benefit of the bureaucracy itself always get in control and those dedicated to the goals the bureaucracy is supposed to accomplish have less and less influence, and sometimes are eliminated entirely.

  32. Her name, for the purposes of this article, was Julia. (I have changed it to protect her anonymity.)

    Why should the anonymity of a false accuser be protected?

    1. Because vagina.

  33. This sounds just like the “Julia” from Obama’s “The Life of Julia”.

  34. “He shouldn’t have let the conversation become romantic and sexual—an exchange he actively participated in.”

    I’d be interested in ENB’s take on that.

    Sex work good, but *reciprocated* workplace flirting bad?

    1. The distinction is that when you’re doing sex work, everyone knows what the game is. Sure, the prostitute may say you’re hilarious and handsome, but you know she’s just saying that because you’re paying her.

      In the office? There have been so many cases of men/women in power retaliating against subordinates who rebuff their advances, it’s not an unreasonable fear to crop up when the boss hits on you. Even if it’s well-intentioned and the boss is just trying to initiate “innocent flirting”, the subordinate doesn’t know that, because that’s the same thing a predator would say.

      So yes. Professional conduct says don’t hit on your subordinates, or anyone you have power/influence over. If you’re a teacher, that includes students, even ones that aren’t currently your students. If you have a co-worker where both of you are on equal footing? That might be okay. But it’s still not wise.

      1. Professional conduct says don’t hit on your subordinates, or anyone you have power/influence over.

        She’s not a subordinate and any power he has over her is minimal. It’s like telling the delivery drivers not to hit on the local employees at any given stop. You couldn’t prevent it even if you wanted to. I agree that it’s not wise, but the policies clearly aren’t going to stop it and, rather overtly in this case, doubling down on ‘MUH POLICEEZ!’ is part of the problem.

      2. “So yes. Professional conduct says don’t hit on your subordinates,…”

        He hit on *her*? She sent him 3000+ email messages, including the first email message that started with:

        “I am glad we crossed paths the other day….”

        “It was likely meant to happen, as are most if not all things in the Universe…..”

  35. Oh please. Talk about male privilege. It does not matter at all what she did or didn’t do. He was in the position of power over heR and was so arrogant and stupid to think he could get away with any sexual conversation with her in these time with all the rules the university has in place. What a moron. You can’t fix stupid.

  36. “He was in the position of power over heR…”

    How do you figure that?

  37. PC culture tells us all women are victims and must always be believed no matter how outrageous their story.
    How can Reason print this then? (sarc)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.