Should Math Professor Be Fired Because of Sex Offenses Against Children 26 Years Before?

An arbitrator held that this wasn't "just cause" required for firing under the tenure contract; last week, a Pennsylvania appellate court declined to set aside the arbitrator's decision.


From Pa. State. Sys. of Higher Ed. v. Ass'n of Pa. State College & Univ. Faculties, decided last week by a Pennsylvania appellate court:

The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) petitions for review from a July 3, 2017 award of an arbitrator that determined that Lock Haven University …, a PASSHE member university, lacked just cause to terminate a professor in its Mathematics Department (Grievant) based on the result of a 2016 criminal history report that revealed that Grievant was convicted of sexual offenses in 1990, 14 years prior to being hired by Lock Haven. The arbitrator awarded Grievant reinstatement to his position with a make-whole remedy and required that Lock Haven not assign Grievant to classes or programs that admit high school students who enroll in college courses but have not yet matriculated in the university, referred to as "dual-enrolled students" or "dual enrollees."

The issues in this appeal are whether the arbitrator's award contravenes the public policy of protecting minors from sexual abuse and whether the award violates the essence test because it intrudes on PASSHE's inherent managerial right to assign professors and students to specific classes. We conclude that the award does not contravene public policy or intrude on PASSHE's inherent managerial rights and accordingly affirm the award….

[The facts:] Beginning in 2014, the General Assembly passed several amendments strengthening the [Child Protective Services Law], … [including by requiring criminal background checks] of all employees of institutions of higher education who had direct contact with children….

In 1989, Grievant was charged in Kentucky with two counts of Sodomy in the third degree and one count of Sexual Abuse in the first degree. Though the exact nature of Grievant's crime is unclear, it appears that Grievant, who was 19 years old at the time, performed oral sex on an 8-year-old boy and engaged in another unspecified sexual act with another minor. Grievant was convicted of the charges in 1990, and he received a 5-year prison sentence, which was automatically reduced by 25% when he successfully completed a voluntary sex offender therapy program while incarcerated.

Following his release from prison, Grievant completed his undergraduate studies where he tutored students and then received a Ph.D. in Mathematics from Michigan State University where he directed the Mathematics Learning Center and supervised 110 graduate assistants. Grievant was hired by Lock Haven in 2004 as a professor in the Mathematics Department. In 2009, Grievant was granted tenure by Lock Haven and promoted to full professor based on his highly regarded teaching and scholarship. In 2014, a faculty committee recommended that Grievant's tenure be renewed as part of a regular review process that occurs every five years.

When Grievant was initially hired at Lock Haven in 2004, the employment application that he completed asked only whether he had been convicted of a crime within the previous decade or whether there were any criminal charges currently pending against him, to which Grievant truthfully responded in the negative. There has been no allegation that Grievant engaged in any other instance of sexual abuse or any other impropriety while employed at Lock Haven or at any point after 1989.

[As a result of the 2014 statutory changes, Grievant was required to get a background check, which revealed the 1989 charges and 1990 conviction. -EV]

On May 9, 2016, [Lock Haven] President [Michael] Fiorentino conducted a pre-disciplinary conference. On May 18, 2016, President Fiorentino sent Grievant a letter notifying him that his employment was terminated. In the letter, President Fiorentino stated that he considered that Grievant had a "regular and recurring teaching assignment" of 100-level courses in which non-matriculated minors could enroll and that he participated in running an annual math competition for high school students hosted by Lock Haven. President Fiorentino stated that he did not agree with Grievant's sentiment that he was a changed person since his conviction and that the severity and relevancy of the criminal offenses outweighed any possible mitigation due to the passage of time and therefore required Grievant's dismissal….

[The arbitrator's decision:] The grievance was then referred to binding arbitration [under the university union contract]…. [T]he arbitrator concluded that the central issue was whether Grievant's continued employment constituted an unacceptable threat to any minors within the Lock Haven student population in spite of the nearly three decades that have elapsed since his crime without any improper behavior. The arbitrator stated that under the "just cause" standard, PASSHE was required to show "a concrete reason for separating him from employment."

Addressing PASSHE's rationale for terminating Grievant, the arbitrator … concluded that, while hiring decisions may be based solely on the severity of the crime and risk that the applicant would commit similar acts in the future, decisions regarding current employees must take into account objective factors pointing towards the employee committing a similar act, with the predictive value of an old conviction receding as evidence of more recent trustworthiness piles up. The arbitrator noted that in 2004 PASSHE implicitly accepted the potential of a candidate for employment to be rehabilitated from a distant criminal act as Grievant's employment application only asked for information regarding pending charges or criminal convictions in the prior 10 years.

The arbitrator detailed Grievant's academic accomplishments since his release from prison and described his unblemished record, excellent reviews and history of advancement at Lock Haven, including his receipt of tenure and its renewal….

The arbitrator finally addressed whether Grievant could still perform his job duties without having contact with high school students, concluding that PASSHE had not demonstrated that it would be impractical for Grievant to exclusively teach matriculated students. The arbitrator concluded that PASSHE lacked just cause for the termination, holding that the preponderance of evidence showed that Grievant's youthful criminal acts had not followed him into middle age. …

The essence test, the applicable standard of review in appeals from grievance arbitration awards, has been described as one of "great deference" which requires that an arbitration award be affirmed so long as it draws its essence from the applicable CBA [collective bargaining agreement]. This test involves a two-step analysis; first, the court must determine if the issue is properly defined as within the terms of the CBA and second, if the issue is embraced in the agreement, whether the award is rationally derived from the agreement…. "[A] court will only vacate an arbitrator's award where the award indisputably and genuinely is without foundation in, or fails to logically flow from, the" CBA.

Under the essence test, the arbitrator's findings of fact are binding on the courts, and the reviewing court may not undertake any independent factual analysis. In addition, a court may not review the merits or reasonableness of the arbitrator's award under the guise of the essence test.

[Managerial prerogatives:] PASSHE asserts that the arbitrator's remedy encroaches on its inherent managerial rights under the CBA to direct the teaching assignments of faculty. PASSHE contends that the award changes Grievant's job description and removes a significant amount of the work (teaching 100-level courses) of the position for which Grievant was hired…. It is well-established that an arbitrator may fashion a remedy in a particular case that is not explicitly prescribed in the CBA so long as the remedy furthers the essence of the CBA…. [T]hat power is not limitless[:] An award that changes the language of a CBA or that adds new or additional provisions to the agreement fails the essence test…. Thus, for example, where the arbitrator adds an "arbitrary and capricious" standard to the CBA concerning the employer's discipline of a probationary employee, or changes the time period for filing a grievance as set forth in the CBA, the arbitration award does not draw its essence from the agreement.

In this case, the arbitrator concluded that the decision to discharge Grievant was based in part upon PASSHE's supposition that Grievant could not perform his duties as a mathematics professor at Lock Haven without coming into contact with dual-enrolled students. The arbitrator addressed the rationale underlying this belief to see whether an accommodation could be made to alleviate PASSHE's concerns, finding that there was high demand among the other professors in the Mathematics Department to teach the 100-level classes in which high school students would enroll and there were sufficient other courses for Grievant to teach, including graduate courses.

The arbitrator observed that the Chair of the Mathematics Department testified that he was comfortable in not assigning Grievant to classes with dual-enrolled students and had accommodated one professor in the past who did not want to teach high-school level classes and agreed to not place students who had complained about another professor in future classes with that professor. The arbitrator further found that summer session courses and an annual math competition for high school students were staffed by volunteers and therefore they were not essential to Grievant's duties. The arbitrator accordingly concluded that being in contact with dual-enrolled students was not an essential aspect of Grievant's job and Grievant could be exempted from being assigned to teach in classes or programs in which dual-enrolled students could enroll….

[Public policy:] PASSHE also argues that the arbitrator's award violates the well-defined public policy in Pennsylvania of protecting minors from sexual abuse. In cases where a court finds that the essence test is satisfied, the court may then consider whether the award violates a well-defined and dominant public policy of the Commonwealth. The public policy exception to the essence test is a "narrow" one, but is not to be interpreted so narrowly "that it would be, as a practical matter, completely negated." The public policy exception requires the application of a three-part test:

["]First, the nature of the conduct leading to the discipline must be identified. Second, we must determine if that conduct implicates a public policy which is 'well-defined, dominant, and ascertained by reference to the laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public interests.' … Third, we must determine if the arbitrator's award poses an unacceptable risk that it will undermine the implicated policy and cause the public employer to breach its lawful obligations or public duty, given the particular circumstances at hand and the factual findings of the arbitrator.["] …

We agree with PASSHE that a well-defined and dominant public policy exists in Pennsylvania in favor of protecting children from child abuse, including abuse of a sexual nature…. Furthermore, Grievant's conduct that led to his termination implicates the public policy in favor of protecting children from abuse….

[But] the award by the arbitrator [would not pose] an unacceptable risk of undermining the public policy …. The arbitrator found that various mitigating factors existed that militated against Grievant's dismissal, including the fact that over 25 years had elapsed since Grievant's crime, his relatively young age at the time of the incident, the fact that he completed a voluntary sexual offender program, and the fact that after being released from prison he completed two advanced degrees at other universities while serving as a tutor and supervisor of graduate students. The arbitrator also focused on the fact that Grievant had worked at Lock Haven since 2004, was promoted to full professor, attained tenure and received excellent reviews for his teaching and scholarship with no indication that he had ever engaged in any impropriety.

In addition, the arbitrator also appropriately considered the substantive due process right under the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibiting legislation that deprives an individual of the right to conduct a lawful business unless the regulation has a real and substantial relationship to a valid state objective. A long line of decisions have invalidated legislation imposing blanket prohibitions on employment based on past convictions, beginning with Secretary of Revenue v. John's Vending Corp. (Pa. 1973), wherein our Supreme Court recognized that over 15-year-old convictions related to drug possession and transporting untaxed liquor had little value in predicting whether an individual should have his license revoked under the Cigarette Tax Act. The Court explained that "[t]o forever foreclose a permissible means of gainful employment because of an improvident act in the distant past completely loses sight of any concept of forgiveness for prior errant behavior and adds yet another stumbling block along the difficult road of rehabilitation." More recently, in [2004 and 2012], this Court struck down lifetime employment bans based on disqualifying criminal convictions …; in both cases, the Court found the legislation wanting because it did not allow the employers to perform an individualized, case-by-case assessment of whether the conviction was predictive of future behavior.

In this case, the arbitrator performed exactly the type of individualized assessment of whether Grievant was suitable for continued employment at Lock Haven, determining that, in light of his exemplary work record, Grievant's remote convictions did not reflect on his present ability to perform the duties of his position. The arbitrator added the proviso that Grievant would not teach in classes or programs that admit dual-enrolled students so that Grievant would be excluded from the class of employees at institutions of higher education that the General Assembly determined should be required to submit Section 6344 clearances.

[T]he question before us is not whether Grievant's actions were contrary to public policy or whether the decision to discharge Grievant furthered public policy. Instead, the issue is whether the public policy would preclude the enforcement of the arbitration award and force PASSHE and Lock Haven to breach their legal obligations or public duty. Based upon the arbitrator's ample explanation of the rationale for the award, we conclude that the award bore a "reasonable, calibrated [and] defensible relationship" to the threat posed by Grievant's conduct, and therefore did not violate public policy….

NEXT: Indonesian Blasphemy Conviction for Complaining About Mosque's Loud Call to Prayer

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. The guy didn’t lie when he applied for the job and he’s not re-offended in the subsequent 26 years. It appears he’s rehabilitated himself and shouldn’t be fired.

    1. “performed oral sex on an 8-year-old boy ”

      He should absolutely be fired.

      1. From a university? Even if he’s teaching classes open to high school students, how likely is he to have any 8 year old kids in one of his classes?

        1. From any job run by decent people.

          1. Let’s take everyone who’s ever offended Bob’s morals and bar them from any gainful employment for the rest of their lives. That’ll work, right? There won’t be any unintended consequences there.

            Unless you plan to bring the death penalty back for everything short of jaywalking, the proper goals of a judicial system must include the possibility of rehabilitation. Anything less leads to the inevitable creation of a permanent underclass that will grow until it causes the society (and the judicial system) to implode.

            1. Yes, forcible oral sodomy on an 8 year old only violates “Bob’s morals “.

              If someone wants to hire a child rapist, fine. If they mistakenly hire one, they should be able to fire them.

              1. Where do you get forcible from?

                1. Where do you get forcible from?


                2. From it being an 8 year old victim.

                  1. To be pendantic, forcible is a fact not in evidence. Not that it changes to moral moment much at the point of 8-year-old victim.

                    1. IIUC it is a fact in evidence as defined by statute when one has committed a sexual assault on an underage child.

      2. Not fired. Locked up forever, or preferably, executed. Sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated. If he’s “behaved” since then, it’s because he hasn’t been caught.

        1. In the vast majority of pedophile cases, the offender and the victim were either relatives or the offenders was a member of the victim’s parent’s circle of friends.

          Stranger child rape/child molestation cases are exceedingly rare.

          1. Yes… It generally requires grooming, not random encounters in a park. That’s why he shouldn’t be around young people in any capacity. He would be developing relationships which can be manipulated into grooming.

            1. Except his victim group is < 10 years old and he wouldn't be around kids that age in a professional capacity working for the university.

          2. “In the vast majority of pedophile cases, the offender and the victim were either relatives or the offenders was a member of the victim’s parent’s circle of friends.”


            1. So the pool of potential victims for any given pedophile is extremely small. And that’s aside from the fact that any kids he would be around as part of his job with the university are well above the potential victim age group for a pedophile.

              1. Its the crime he already committed that is worthy of him being fired.

                The chances of OJ Simpson murdering someone is small. Would you hire him?

          3. And this is relevant because…?

        2. Clearly, you know nothing of the subject you comment on. Re-offending rates for people convicted of a sexual offence are the lowest of any offence category. At most, 15%. At least, around 1%. Read the research; it all shows the same.

      3. Bob, et. al, how ’bout his 2A rights?

        Should he be allowed to be armed?

    2. How do you know he hasn’t reoffended? He was convicted of molestation of an 8 year old. He shouldn’t be around children in an authoritative capacity.

      1. You do understand that pedophiles are attracted specifically to prepubescent children. How does that make him a threat to teenagers?

        1. In the minds of right-wing zealots, categorising people they know nothing about is easy and makes them feel good about themselves. There is a vast amount of misinformation on the net about minor-attracted people, who are male and female.

  2. Couple thoughts:

    1) This case would make a good classroom example, both for the reasoning process and external references that go into the final ruling, and for the requirement that the student put side their presumably strong personal reaction to Grievant’s pedophilic past and look at the instant facts.

    2) While I think most people in the abstract agree that having once committed a crime, even a serious one, shouldn’t result in being permanently denied any opening to become a productive citizen, pedophilia is a thornier issue than, say, murder or drug-related crimes. Pedophilia is fairly well understood to be a sort of sexual orientation where the pedophile is attracted to children the same way non-pedophiles are attracted to adults. The implication is that rehabilitation means something different, or may simply not exist, for pedophiles as opposed to other categories of criminals.

    A reasonable argument could be made that pedophilia-related crimes should be considered apart from other types of crime for the purposes of future employment (and this case doesn’t necessarily militate against that, since part of the arbitrator’s reasoning was that Grievant doesn’t work with minors at Lock Haven, and wouldn’t ever need to)

    1. “Pedophilia is fairly well understood to be a sort of sexual orientation where the pedophile is attracted to prepubescent children the same way non-pedophiles are attracted to adults.”


      The only victim whose age (8) was mentioned was highly likely to have been prepubescent at the time of the crime.

      However, aside from how long ago the crime was and any rehabilitation, the university was somehow concerned that he was a threat to teenagers.

      1. Let’s be clear – the university was concerned that he was a threat to admissions and public appearances. The teenager thing is just a handy cover story.

        Honestly, did anyone think this guy was going to re-offend right there in the middle of class?

    2. I have read many times that the recidivism rate for pedophiles is among the lowest of all criminals.

      1. Probably, because in the vast majority of cases, the pedophile is either a blood relative of his victims or a “friend of the family”.

    3. Certain crimes mean you should die. If not, then being a beggar is the next best thing.

      1. I think the statistics on this are sketchy at best, since child molestation is one of those crimes that tend to go unreported.

        You can argue either way .. if it’s an orientation, meaning that pedophiles feel a visceral urge to rape young children, then you could compare it to a serial killer who has periodic powerful urges to kill. But, you could also compare to a person who has anger management issues and learns to control their violent urges. As is often said in the context of mass shooters, they all seem to be on anti-psychotic medication, but then so are tens of thousands of other people who never hurt anyone.

        It’s a tough issue, and I think ultimately this is why we have people we call “judges” to exercise judgment in individual cases.

        1. Meant this as a reply to one comment above…

        2. Stranger child rape is extremely rare. In the vast majority of reported cases, the pedophile is a relative of the victim, or a person in the victim’s parent’s circle of friends.

          1. How many times are you going to repeat this ignorant talking point? A teacher wouldn’t be considered a stranger. Just like a priest is not. They have ongoing relationships w the victim.

          2. Yes, but people string up strangers who molest children. When it’s Uncle Jim, they cover it up instead, so poor Aunt Jenny and the kids won’t have to bear the shame in public. Not to mention which, Uncle Jim sees little Johnny on a regular basis and doesn’t have to do even minimal work to earn his trust and obedience, compared with some other kid who will have been taught not to take candy from strangers.

            Criminals take the path of least resistance just like everyone else.

          3. “Stranger child rape is extremely rare. In the vast majority of reported cases, the pedophile is a relative of the victim, or a person in the victim’s parent’s circle of friends.”

            Again, so?

            They are both equally bad.

      2. And who makes you the person to decide this? What about, for example members of organised crime families such as the ‘Ndrangheta? Are they better or worse than a man who, in 1990, had oral sex on a small boy and has not reoffended? In your mind, nothing is worse than sex.

    4. “Pedophilia is fairly well understood to be a sort of sexual orientation where the pedophile is attracted to children the same way non-pedophiles are attracted to adults.”

      I don’t understand the relevance of that point. I am permanently attracted to adult women, but I haven’t slept with any of them other than my wife since we got married. And there are plenty of men who share my orientation and have taken vows of chastity and kept them. Is the theory that this man should not be employed on a college campus because he might be thinking about sex with prepubescent children?

      1. Big difference: you are married to a woman who presumably satisfies your sexual needs. The pedophile cannot legally or morally satisfy his sexual needs, ever. He isn’t the equivalent of a faithful married man, he’s the equivalent of an “incel”.

        And while there may be plenty of men who have taken a vow of chastity and kept it, there are also plenty who have failed hard at that. I am Catholic myself, but I don’t really trust the notion that someone is going to go their whole lives suppressing their most primal animal urges, no matter how noble their intentions at the outset.

        1. “…you are married to a woman who presumably satisfies your sexual needs.”

          So you aren’t married, then?

          1. Ha ha, but yes mutual sexual satisfaction is a non-negotiable part of a successful marriage. A lot of human misery has been caused by the notion that it isn’t or shouldn’t be. People pin that on the Abrahamic religions, and they aren’t wrong, but even the latest trendy politics tend to carry it forward.

  3. He is teaching at the university level. It would be a different issue if he was teaching at the primary or secondary school level. Either way, people should be given an opportunity to get past their former bad behavior.

    This is a difficult issue. It is one that lends itself to grandstanding by politicians and people trying to affect public behavior and beliefs.

    1. No, it would not be a particularly different issue if he was teaching at the secondary school level, it shouldn’t be an issue at all unless he was teaching primary school level.

      1. He had been teaching courses that were open to high school stutdents.
      2. The victim of known age was only 8 at the time, the other victim was likely of a similar age.

  4. This case is an interesting contrast to the “ban the box” movement in lots of states. Basically, proponents advocate prohibiting employers from asking about arrests and convictions because it tends to have a disproportionate hardship on minorities. They don’t want an arrest or conviction to be the proverbial scarlet letter.

    Although Pennsylvania has not adopted that law, other states have. (I believe Pittsburgh and Philly restrict certain employers from asking about them in applications, but not after a conditional job offer has been made.) It’s hard to square that line of argument with the claim that there’s a public policy that requires employers be permitted to fire employees upon learning of past convictions.

    I also wonder how much of this decision is driven by the case being an appeal of an arbitration decision. Had the original case been in district court, it probably would have been a de novo review (at least on the legal questions). But under the “essence test,” it looks like even a wrong decision must be affirmed so long as it is “rationally derived from the [collective bargaining] agreement.” It’s one of the risks of using arbitration.

    You can also see how what may have otherwise been considered a wrong decision may later be used to argue for similar outcomes in other cases or be misinterpreted by people missing that nuance of the case.

    1. I’ve never seen an arbitrator rule against the employee. Ever.

      1. Have you looked hard? I did a quick search, and came across this summary of arbitration awards in cases involving Massachusetts K-12 school teachers — looks like a mix of rulings for the employee and against, no? See also this summary for Massachusetts K-12 school administrators.

        1. Truthfully, not really. I’ve just seen a few outrageous cases probably selected for the news because of their courageousness.

          1. Is there anyone else who is as proud to be an ignorant fucking moron as ARWP? It’s like a badge of honor with you. I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING AND TRUTHFULLY IT’S BECAUSE I DON’T EVEN LOOK.

            1. My goal is to point out how morally bankrupt liberalism is and hopefully make conservative realize that liberals need to be exterminated.

              1. Sure it is. We all believe that you’re on a sincere mission to exterminate liberals, rather than just being an obnoxious 2L troll who is mad that his classmates disagree with him politically,
                and vents by playing Dungeons and Dragons: Political Arguments Edition online. Roll for initiative.

    2. I also wonder how much of this decision is driven by the case being an appeal of an arbitration decision.

      I suspect that if the arbitrator had ruled the other way, the decision would have been upheld.

  5. He should make a go of it in Hollywood — they’ll love him and see it as a credential.

  6. Most of these comments ignore the most important fact; this is about college professors.
    If he is a proper progressive, he should be retained, given a raise, and all records expunged.
    If he is an evil conservative, or even one of the mythical centrist democrats, he should be burned at the stake.
    All the irrelevant facts about past convictions and current behavior just get in the way of seeing the proper result.

  7. As noted by other commenters, the “minor” thing is just dumb. Most people are attracted people under 18, it’s not like there’s a switch that flips on somebody’s 18th birthday. And this guy did exactly what we want people to do, he did his time, got out, and didn’t re-offend.

    1. Referring, of course, to 17-year olds, not 8-year old boys. The fact that somebody did time for molesting an 8-year old boy doesn’t mean that he’s likely to re-offend with a 17-year old. And of course, people are expected to exercise self control around minors.

    2. He likely did re-offend. He just wasn’t caught.

      1. Present your evidence or admit that for the second time in the same thread you’ve done no research whatsoever.

    3. There is a world of difference of finding young women (say, 16 – 18, but even some early developed 15 years olds) sexually attractive, as compared to an 8 year old. This is true for males or females, BTW, IMHO.

      As much as I understand he did his time, no record of recidivism, ask yourself – would you want him around you or your family?

      1. Sure, as I said, nothing about the fact that he might be a pedophile makes him particularly likely to re-offend with older teenagers. Most teachers are likely to be attracted to older teenagers, and we expect them to keep it in their pants.

        “As much as I understand he did his time, no record of recidivism, ask yourself – would you want him around you or your family?”

        I have very little control over who gets to be around me and my family. But one of the consequences of not locking up every offender for life is that we have to interact with them when they get out. And I certainly don’t want him sleeping under the bridge where my (hypothetical) kid walks to school.

  8. The rule of law folks versus the righteous fury brigade.

    If we want to jail people for prepubescent molestation forever, I’m down. But we should pass a law, or amend the Constitution.

    Otherwise, quit your slavering for blood and wallowing in propensity evidence.

    1. I noticed the righteous folk here haven’t mentioned the guy’s 2A rights.

      I wonder how they feel about that.

      Can’t have a job but OK to have a gun…

  9. As yourselves this: Would you want this guy teaching your children? Not me. For one thing, there is no way of knowing whether he has continued to commit these same sorts of offenses, but simply has been caught. Just take a look at the Catholic Church. Sexual abuse goes unreported, even now, for decades, and what is reported cannot possibly represent 100% of the offenses.

    Second, what if he does do it again? How does the employer, which knows of his past conduct, defend that lawsuit?

    This is not even a close call for me.

    1. So you’re saying that you agree with the decision, then, correct? Because the decision stipulates that he won’t be teaching children.

      1. Please don’t ask someone on his moral high horse to get down and think logically.

  10. He absolutely should not be fired. Rehabilitation, successful reentry into society, and the building of a productive life are goals of the justice system equal to if not exceeding that of punishment. Mr. Grievant has met every criteria. For the person(s) who said that those who commit sexual crimes are never rehabilitated, you are entitled to your opinion, but you need to know that it is at variance with every shred of evidence, including that of multiple research studies over decades.
    For those whose sense of morality is so outraged by someone who committed a vile act becoming successful in a career, you need to get over it. You are welcome to choose your circle of friends based on your level of indignation at their pasts, but you do not have the right to deny the opportunity to earn a living and be a productive member of society to another. Not a single benefit to society would ensue if Mr. Grievant were fired from his position. No one is at literally zero risk to do any given thing, but the risk of this man to commit another sexual crime, based on his degree of rehabilitation and connection to a law-abiding life and society as well as a plethora of research data, is no greater than that of the president of the university nor that of his strongest critic.

  11. Things have changed since this man’s conviction and release. Here in the UK, as in the USA, he would not have been able to have “completed his undergraduate studies where he tutored students and then received a Ph.D. in Mathematics”. No educational institution would have accepted him, let alone allowed him to tutor students – even adults of any age whatsoever. He would much more likely have had to remain unemployed for a long time, perhaps picking up a menial job here or there, and living in the worst places. His friends and family would disown him, not wanting to pick up his stigma by association. The police would keep turning up at any hour to ensure he was living where he stated on the register. All because of that conviction.

    And he would never have contributed to society in all the amazing ways he has done, since that time. Which was the better outcome?

Please to post comments