Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Widener Law Prof. Lawrence Connell Wins Dismissal Case

    Widener Law Prof. Lawrence Connell Wins Dismissal Case

    I have written several times about the ordeal of Widener Law Professor Lawrence Connell, who was given notice of dismissal after he used a hypothetical example in his criminal law class of the Widener Dean Linda Ammons being attacked, and a small number of students alleged that Connell made racist and/or sexist statements in class.

    Connell contested his dismissal at a law school disciplinary hearing, and also has sued for defamation.  Connell claimed he was singled out because he is openly conservative.

    Connell just received word that he won the disciplinary hearing.  From a Press Release issued by his attorneys:

    After a three-day trial on June 6-8, a Widener University committee today unanimously cleared law professor Larry Connell of charges that he was a racist, a sexist and a danger to students.

    “I am elated,” said Connell, “and I look forward to returning in the fall to the campus from which I was banned by Dean Ammons and to resuming my teaching duties. I would not have won without the testimony of dozens of my students who submitted statements to refute the baseless charges two disgruntled students filed against me. I thank them from the bottom of my heart.”

    “Once again the faculty of the law school spoke clearly about the tactics of Dean Ammons in her attempt to rid the campus of my conservative voice. This is the second time the faculty refused to sign on to her vendetta against me,” added Connell.

    The University impaneled a committee consisting of law professors Judy Ritter and Jim May, as well as University associate vice-president of administration George Hassel, to hear the case against Connell. In a unanimous 52 page decision, which the University will have to decide on releasing to the media, the committee exonerated Connell of all charges of racial and sexual harassment and discrimination under the University’s rules.

    Update:  I should add that according to the Press Release Connell was found to have engaged in “retaliation”:

    The committee, however, did find that Connell had violated code prohibitions against “retaliation” for emailing his students to explain why Ammons had banned him from the campus and for his attorney Thomas Neuberger’s issuing a press statement explaining his efforts to identify Connell’s accusers and to protect his client’s reputation.

    I have requested a copy of the decision from Widener, but based on a converstation I had with Widener’s Director of Public Relations, it appears that Widener will not provide the decision.  If that changes, and I can obtain the full decision, I will post it.

    Update No. 2:  I received the following statement from Widener:

    “The Committee has submitted its report to the dean of the law school and each of the parties.  The contents of this report are confidential. The university’s policy is not to release documents on personnel issues to the news media or to comment on their contents. The lawsuit that Professor Connell has filed is a matter of litigation to be decided in the Delaware Court. We believe that the claims raised in the lawsuit are without merit and the matter will be defended vigorously.”


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Alex Bensky | July 21, 2011 at 5:02 pm

    Dino, you clearly don’t understand nuance and you’re lucky that you have fellow readers like me who can explain it to you.

    When a conservative defends himself, e.g. by sending out statements saying why he didn’t do what he is charged with doing, it’s retaliation. It’s the same reason that if you criticize a leftist you are trying to stifle dissent.

    Anything that makes a progressive uncomfortable or might possibly force him to reconsider his facts or his theories is, ipso facto, aggressive and is retaliation, harassment, or whatever. This is simply an outgrowth–excuse me, emanations from the penumbra of–the constitutional right of certain people not to be offended.

      Steve in reply to Alex Bensky. | July 21, 2011 at 5:22 pm

      So , one day under our new and glorious Leninist-Stalinist-Obamanationist Soviet Republic I can declare that I am offended by the colors red and blue and henceforth The Flag of the USSRA would 50 white stars on a white field?

      What a pretty picture you are painting.


      Wow that one kind of hurt.

    Captain Obvious | July 21, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Actually, to be pro-white and anti-red would be racist… so the actual result would be quite meta: a big red flag

    Liberty | July 21, 2011 at 5:53 pm

    Goodness gracious Franz Kafka, your world view is becoming more and more normal as we devolve towards idiocy.

    BarbaraS | July 22, 2011 at 12:04 am

    I got a charge out of “a danger to students”. These are law students, supposedly adults and college graduates. Besides, doesn’t the law say an accused has the right to face his accusers? Liberals only go by strict law when they are on the hot seat. Otherwise, not.

    Prof. Connell sent an email to his students. His attorney, “… issu[ed] a press statement explaining his efforts to identify Connell’s accusers and to protect his client’s reputation.”

    Looks like Ammons is one of those “ivory tower” elites who has never had to make payroll, has never had a real job or has any real world experience. See below.

    I hope Connell kicks her ass in court.

    Also see:

    And read the comments.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend