The report issued by the AAUPs Committee A overreaches and takes a result oriented path to its

conclusions. It does not dispute the key facts of Dr. Clicks misconduct and admits that this is
not a case about her academic freedom. Yet it reaches the incongruous conclusion that academic
freedom is endangered at the University of Missouri.
It claims this is because there was no faculty hearing prior to Dr. Clicks dismissal. By finding a
danger to academic freedom after acknowledging there is no evidence that academic freedom has
been denied, the report loses sight of the true purposes of a faculty hearing and treats such a
hearing as an entitlement to throw a thin chalk line around Dr. Click regardless of her
misconduct.
This is especially disappointing because the Committees report does not dispute the key facts of
Dr. Clicks misconduct: that she assaulted a student and encouraged others to physically
intimidate him; excluded people from a public space where they had a right to be present; and
interfered with freedom of the press at the university that is home to the worlds oldest
journalism school. The Board of Curators has emphasized that it does not intend to set a
precedent through its action in this case and the report does not dispute the Boards statements
concerning its intent. Further, the report acknowledges many key points regarding Dr. Clicks
misconduct and the Board action. For example, the report itself:

Purposely and expressly does not assert that [Dr. Clicks] actions should have been
protected under principles of academic freedom. Report at 1.
Acknowledges that the fundamental issue in this case is not denial of Professor Clicks
academic freedom. Report at 11.
Finds that Professor Click has not denied that she engaged in the conduct that became
the basis for the charges that led to her dismissal. Indeed, her conduct is amply
documented on video. The key facts relating to the misconduct charge are thus not in
dispute. Report at 2.
Concludes that Dr. Clicks action toward MU student Mark Schierbecker may well
qualify as third-degree assault under the state of Missouris definition. Report at 11.
Admits that access to [Carnahan Quadrangle], which is clearly a public space, cannot
legally be restricted as protestors attempted to do. Report at 4.
Acknowledges that [c]alling for a journalist to be removed from a public space could be
deemed to violate the AAUPs own Statement on Professional Ethics. Report at 12.

Concedes that the Board of Curators, as a governing board, has legal authority to act
independently of a faculty hearing. Report at 14.

Even in this context, the Committees report claims that academic freedom is endangered
because there was not a faculty hearing on Dr. Clicks undisputed misconduct. This view of
faculty hearings is inconsistent with the AAUPs own standards. Those standards state that
faculty dismissals should, if possible, be considered both by a faculty committee and the
institutions governing board. They are not absolute entitlements. Indeed, dismissal procedures
and even tenure itself which Dr. Click did not have are means to certain ends, such as
academic freedom. In finding a threat to academic freedom at the University despite stating
unequivocally that the fundamental issue in this case is not denial of Dr. Clicks academic
freedom, the report loses sight of the purpose of faculty hearings and illustrates it result-oriented
approach.
The report also takes its eye off fundamental issues of academic freedom in failing to appreciate
fully the impact of Dr. Clicks misconduct on the Universitys educational environment. While
Dr. Clicks academic freedom was not at stake, the failure of existing procedures to address the
seriousness of her misconduct had raised worrisome questions about the Universitys
commitment to upholding the standards that protect its educational environment. When others
failed to act, it was incumbent on the Board to act and enforce those standards. Engaging any
other process would have allowed questions to linger for such a time that the effects on the
Universitys educational environment would have been caustic.
According to the report, the Board still should have asked faculty to conduct a hearing and
waited longer for action. It essentially argues that faculty hearings should be held unless the
faculty refuses to hear a case. But even if that were so, the Board had waited months for the
seriousness of Dr. Clicks well-known conduct to be addressed. The effect on the situation
facing the Board was the same as a faculty refusal to act.
We do not suggest that faculty hearings should be cast aside whenever there is a case of faculty
misconduct that does not involve exercise of academic freedom. The Board has no pattern of
doing so and hopes to work with faculty to ensure that any future instance of faculty misconduct
is addressed through a process involving faculty review, and without need for the Board to act in
this manner again. Rather, we make the narrower point that, in the unique circumstances of this
case, the Board was obligated to act on its own to enforce the Universitys standards and its
decision to do so was in the best interest of the University and does not threaten academic
freedom.
The report states, The purpose of this report is not to defend Professor Clicks November 9
actions. But it weaves in many inconsistent, irrelevant, and improper observations in an
apparent attempt to defend Dr. Clicks misconduct. For example, it provides an incomplete
discussion of the assault by Dr. Click, emphasizing only her touching Mr. Schierbeckers camera
and omitting discussion of her call for force against him. Further, the report treats similar terms
in its own standards inconsistently in a manner that favors Dr. Click. It accuses the Board of
2

failing to adhere to the admonition in the Statement on Government to undertake appropriate

self-limitation. Report at 19. Yet when the Board finds that Dr. Click failed to meet the
University and AAUP standard that faculty must exercise appropriate restraint, the report
criticizes the Board for relying on largely hortatory language. Report at 12.
The report makes many irrelevant or inaccurate observations that cast aspersions at the
University or dramatize the environment in which Dr. Clicks misconduct occurred. These
tactics distract from the real issues at hand and from Dr. Clicks misconduct. The University,
like many other institutions, faces challenges related to diversity and inclusion. As the Board
acknowledged, Dr. Click was involved in emotionally charged events. But none of this excuses
Dr. Click from the responsibility to conduct herself in a professional manner befitting a faculty
member. And the Board had a responsibility to address her misconduct when others failed to do
so.
The report contains many erroneous statements about the process followed by the Board in
addressing Dr. Clicks misconduct. In fact, as the Board has previously detailed, it ordered an
objective fact investigation by experienced investigators of the Bryan Cave law firm and
provided the results of the investigation, including the names of key witnesses and their
statements, to Dr. Click. The Board provided Dr. Click an opportunity to respond to the
investigation and, after the Boards initial decision, it gave her the opportunity to appeal the
decision. The Board considered Dr. Clicks responses in both occasions, but she did not dispute
any of the essential facts. Using the same evidence that was fully disclosed to Dr. Click, the
Board took action based on her misconduct. (By contrast, the AAUP Committee did not share a
list of its witnesses or their statements with the University before issuing its report.)
No witness has contended that his or her statements to Bryan Cave were reported incorrectly.
Further, Dr. Click did not assert that the Bryan Cave Report was not objective or that it was
incorrect as to any of the key facts. Her only comments to the report were to add, in her words,
context to the events leading up to her confrontation on Carnahan Quadrangle and to suggest
some minor corrections. The Board was willing to accept all of her comments and corrections
for purposes of reaching a decision.
More fundamentally, the AAUP Committee reports attacks on the Bryan Cave investigation and
report are undermined by the rest of the Committee reports content. The Committees report
acknowledges that [t]he key facts relating to the misconduct charge are not in dispute. It
does not identify any substantive inaccuracy in the Bryan Cave Report. Nor does it identify any
particular rebuttal that Dr. Click might have made if a different process had been followed.
The report repeatedly asserts that the Board did not follow University regulations in dismissing
Dr. Click without a hearing before a faculty body. That is inconsistent with the reports
acknowledgement that the Board had legal authority to act independently. Moreover, it is
simply wrong. As we explained to the Committee previously, the Board retains authority to
terminate a faculty appointment. The Committees report fails even to discuss the relevant
University rules we called to the Committees attention expressly permitting the Board to act in
this type of situation.
3

The report tries to imply that the Board had improper motives in dismissing Dr. Click. But its
efforts are plagued by inconsistency and speculation. It acknowledges that [t]he fundamental
issue in this case is not denial of Professor Clicks academic freedom. Report at 11. It also
admits that there is no definitive evidence to suggest that the board of curators did not act upon
its stated motives. Report at 19. And that we have seen no evidence that directly refutes the
boards contention that its actions were not determined by Professor Clicks views or
associations. Report at 13. Yet it speculates that there is reason to suspect that concerns other
than Professor Clicks actions were the real cause of her dismissal. Moreover the report relies
on this suspicion as part of the basis for its conclusion that academic freedom is endangered.
The report emphasizes calls from Missouri legislators for termination of Dr. Click and relies on
them as a key component of its conclusion that academic freedom is endangered at the
University. But that conclusion is inconsistent with the reports acknowledgement this case is
not about denial of Dr. Clicks academic freedom. The report also addresses other comments
and actions by legislators having nothing to do with Dr. Click. It speculates that these signal
threats to academic freedom, even though it does not point to any evidence that academic
freedom actually has been impaired.
We recognize there can be reasonable debate about whether the Board should have tried to
prompt a faculty hearing before it dismissed Dr. Click and we encouraged a thoughtful
discussion about academic freedom. But to find that academic freedom is in danger at the
University of Missouri based on this singularly challenging case of misconduct requires an
overreach. And that is what the Committees report does. We also recognize that faculty
hearings can guard against dismissals that target a faculty members academic freedom. As the
Committees report admits, however, that was not this case. Faculty hearings should not be a
means to ignore or blindly defend faculty misconduct. But that too is what the Committees
report does.

Specific Examples of Flaws in the AAUP Committees Report

The Reports Defense of Dr. Clicks Misconduct
The Committees report states, The purpose of this report is not to defend Professor Clicks
November 9 actions. But the report weaves in many inconsistent, irrelevant, and improper
observations in an attempt to defend Dr. Clicks misconduct.

The report emphasizes an incomplete description of the assault by Dr. Click, referring
only to her touching Mr. Schierbeckers camera. Report at 11. The warrant information,
which is a part of the criminal information filed against Dr. Click states that she
assaulted MS by grabbing at his camera with her hand and attempting to knock it from
his grasp. Click also assaulted M.S. by calling out and asking for other people in the area
at the time to forcefully remove him from the quad, after he refused to obey her orders to
leave. Exhibit 26 to Bryan Cave Report. Likewise, the Boards decision concerning Dr.
Click addressed in detail her call for force against Mr. Schierbecker.
The report asserts that others engaged in similar assaults on November 9 without being
charged. Report at 12. But it points to nobody who called for force in the way Dr. Click
did.
The report treats similar terms in its own standards inconsistently in a manner that favors
Dr. Click. It accuses the Board of failing to adhere to the admonition in the Statement
on Government to undertake appropriate self-limitation. Report at 19. Yet the report
criticizes the Boards finding that Dr. Click failed to meet the University and AAUP
standard that faculty must exercise appropriate restraint as relying on largely hortatory
language. Report at 12.
The report makes a point of noting that Mr. Schierbecker had limited prior journalistic
experience and no formal assignment on November 9. While he had previously submitted
articles to the Maneater, a student publication, and had taken photos for the publication
on an ad hoc basis until August 2015, his articles were never published. Report at 4.
This is an improper attempt to diminish Mr. Schierbecker. Emphasizing his limited
journalistic background is irrelevant and inconsistent with the reports acknowledgement
that Carnahan Quadrangle is a public place and access to it legally could not be restricted.
The report states, Mr. Schierbecker later posted a longer version of his video, which for
many viewers shows Professor Clicks actions in a more favorable light. Report at 5.
This is inconsistent with the evidence acknowledged in the report, which indisputably
shows Dr. Click calling for force against Mr. Schierbecker.
The report refers to Dr. Clicks attempt to exclude Mr. Tai and Mr. Schierbecker.
Report at 1. This is inconsistent with the evidence, which shows that through her conduct
and that of others, both Mr. Tai and Mr. Schierbecker were, in fact, improperly excluded
from public areas of Carnahan Quadrangle.
Likewise, the report refers to Dr. Clicks alleged misconduct. Report at 1, 13. This is
inconsistent with the reports acknowledgment that Dr. Clicks conduct met the definition
of assault and violated AAUP standards. Even if the Committee disagrees with whether

Dr. Click should have been dismissed, the evidence acknowledged in the report leaves no
room to dispute that she engaged in misconduct.
The report describes Dr. Clicks conduct at the October 10 Homecoming Parade only
from her perspective and does not describe her conduct in resisting the police officers
direct and proper commands, and in obstructing the officers efforts at moving the student
protesters from the street onto the sidewalk area. Report at 8.

The Reports Erroneous Observations on the Boards Investigation and Process

The Committees report contains many erroneous statements about the process followed by the
Board in addressing Dr. Clicks misconduct. In fact, as the Board has previously detailed, the
Board ordered an objective fact investigation by experienced investigators and provided the
results of the investigation, including the names of key witnesses and their statements, to Dr.
Click. The Board provided Dr. Click an opportunity to respond to the investigation and, after the
Boards initial decision, it gave her the opportunity to appeal the decision. The Board considered
Dr. Clicks responses in both occasions, but she did not dispute any of the essential facts. Using
the same evidence that was fully disclosed to Dr. Click, the Board took action based on her
misconduct.

Fundamentally, the Committee reports attacks on the Bryan Cave investigation and
report are undermined by the rest of the Committee reports content. The Committees
report acknowledges that [t]he key facts relating to the misconduct charge are not in
dispute. Report at 2. It does not identify any substantive inaccuracy in the Bryan Cave
Report. Nor does the report identify any particular rebuttal that Dr. Click might have
made if a different process had been followed. Thus the Committee fails to explain how
its criticisms of the Bryan Cave Report are relevant or significant in any substantive way.
The Committees report questions the fairness and reliability of the Bryan Cave Report.
But neither Dr. Click nor her counsel ever voiced a concern that the Bryan Cave Report
was not objective. Her only comments to the report were to add, in her words, context
to the events leading up to her confrontation on Carnahan Quadrangle and to suggest
some minor corrections. The Board was willing to accept all of her comments and
corrections for purposes of reaching a decision.
The draft notes that Bryan Cave attorneys met twice with Professor Click. Report at 7.
This does not accurately convey the extent of the investigation, which entailed interviews
of many more witnesses and review of reports and records, as detailed in the Bryan Cave
Report.
The report asserts it is difficult to understand how Professor Click could have had an
opportunity to rebut witness testimony. Report at 15. Dr. Click and her attorney,
having provided Bryan Cave with the students and faculty members she believed
pertinent to the investigation, could have conducted their own interviews of those
individuals and submitted reports of those interviews to the Board if they would have
differed from the Bryan Cave interview memos. Likewise, they also could have
identified any other witnesses and provided their information to the Board.
6

The report states that the witness statements appended to the report are not depositions
or transcripts of interviews. Instead, they are primarily secondhand accounts by the
interrogators of what they claim the witnesses said. Report at 15. This is flawed on
many levels.
o The Committee identifies no basis for these criticisms or any expertise to make
them. The Bryan Cave attorneys who led the investigation have extensive
experience as investigators. Indeed, the lead attorney has more than 20 years of
experience as a federal prosecutor, including service the chief civil rights
prosecutor in U.S. Attorneys Offices in St. Louis and East St. Louis, where he
was charged with investigating and prosecuting all forms of civil rights violations,
including hate crimes against minority members of the community and police
excessive use of force matters. He also served as the chief prosecutor for public
corruption investigations and prosecutions in those two Offices.
o In fact, recording these types of interviews to produce transcripts is not standard
procedure in these types of investigations. The experienced Bryan Cave attorneys
followed typical practices for such investigations. In their experienced judgment,
any attempt to record these interviews would very likely have had a chilling effect
on the actual interview process, and the ability of the Bryan Cave attorneys to
obtain candid factual information.
o Statements of several key witnesses, including Mr. Tai, Mr. Schierbecker, and
MU faculty members, were in fact signed and adopted by the witnesses. Dr.
Click was given an opportunity to review and comment on the memoranda of her
interviews.
o Dr. Click did not assert that the Bryan Cave Report was incorrect as to any of the
key facts.
o Since the Bryan Cave Report and the interview memos were released publicly, no
witness has come forward to contend that his or her statements to Bryan Cave
were reported incorrectly.
The report asserts we have seen no evidence that the outside counsel made any effort to
identify and interview any neutral bystanders or others unknown to either Professor Click
or the curators who might have come forward with useful information. In just two days
we were able to identify and interview a student who was standing very close to the
confrontations between Professor Click and the student journalists, but she informed us
that not only had she not been contacted by the curators investigators but she had not
even heard that such an investigation was taking place. Report at 15. This criticism is
misplaced in several respects.
o The report does not suggest that this student or any other provided any
information that would have led to any dispute about key facts. Nor does it allege
any particular individual with important knowledge was not interviewed.
o A great many people were on Carnahan Quadrangle on November 9 in the
vicinity of Dr. Clicks confrontations with Mr. Tai and Mr. Schierbecker. But
that does not mean it was necessary or worthwhile to pursue more interviews than
Bryan Cave conducted. This criticism is inconsistent with the committees
7

fundamental acknowledgment that Professor Click has not denied that she
engaged in the conduct that became the basis for the charges that led to her
dismissal. Indeed, her conduct is amply documented on video. The key facts
relating to the misconduct charge are thus not in dispute. Report at 2.
The report asserts, Indeed, as far as we can tell, the investigation conducted by the
Bryan Cave firm took place almost entirely outside the knowledge of the broader
university community. Report at 15. This criticism overlooks that the Board made a
public announcement of its investigation.

The Reports Erroneous Observations on the Boards Action and Motivation

The report tries to imply that the Board had improper motives in dismissing Dr. Click. But its
efforts are plagued by inconsistency and speculation. The report also draws an unjustified and
unsupported connection between expressions of dissatisfaction from outside the University and a
threat to academic freedom.

The report acknowledges that [t]he fundamental issue in this case is not denial of
Professor Clicks academic freedom. Report at 11. It also admits that there is no
definitive evidence to suggest that the board of curators did not act upon its stated
motives. Report at 19. And that we have seen no evidence that directly refutes the
boards contention that its actions were not determined by Professor Clicks views or
associations. Report at 13. Yet it speculates that there is reason to suspect that
concerns other than Professor Clicks actions were the real cause of her dismissal.
Moreover the report relies on this suspicion as part of the basis for its conclusion that
academic freedom is endangered.
The report emphasizes calls from Missouri legislators for termination of Dr. Click and
relies on them as a key component of its conclusion that academic freedom is endangered
at the University. Reaching that conclusion is inconsistent with the reports
acknowledgement this case is not about denial of Dr. Clicks academic freedom. Further,
the University serves the public and the state. The people and their elected
representatives had every right to express dissatisfaction about Dr. Clicks misconduct
and the Universitys failure to address it.
The report addresses other comments and actions by legislators having nothing to do with
Dr. Click. It speculates that these signal threats to academic freedom, even though it does
not point to any evidence that academic freedom actually has been impaired.
The report asserts that the Board did not follow University regulations in dismissing Dr.
Click without a hearing before a faculty body.
o That is inconsistent with the reports acknowledgement that the Board had legal
authority to act independently. Report at 14.
o As we explained to the Committee previously, the procedures entailing a faculty
hearing are not the only means for the Board to act on termination of an appointment.
Instead, the Board retains authority to act to terminate a faculty appointment apart
from those procedures. The Committees report fails even to discuss the relevant
8

University rules we called to the Committees attention expressly permitting the

Board to act in this type of situation. University of Missouri Collected Rules and
Regulations Sections 10.030.A.9, 20.030.B, and 320.020.B.
The report alleges, The most reasonable explanationnot only for refusing to follow the
institutions own regulations but also for declining the opportunity to press charges under
those regulationsis that the curators feared the process would fail to produce a desired
result. Report at 13. This is wrong. Not only is it unsupported speculation, it is flawed
in other respects as well.
o As explained above, the report is inconsistent and wrong in alleging that the
Board failed to follow University rules.
o Moreover, the reports allegation is inconsistent with its own admission that there
is no definitive evidence to suggest that the board of curators did not act upon its
stated motives. Report at 19.
o The reports allegation does not make sense. The Board would have retained
authority to act even if a hearing before a faculty body had occurred. If the Board
had pre-judged the matter as the committee alleges, it had no reason to worry
whether a faculty hearing would produce a desired result as the Committee
alleges because it still could have acted to dismiss Dr. Click.
o On the contrary, the Board had already provided the Committee with the most
reasonable explanation for its action: It was only after there had been a failure
of any other process to address the seriousness of Dr. Clicks conduct that the
matter rose to a level where the Universitys commitment to its educational
standards was in serious question and the Board felt compelled to act on its own.
At that point, engaging any other process would have allowed those questions to
linger for such a time that in the Boards view the effects on the Universitys
educational environment would have been caustic.

Other Irrelevant and Inaccurate Observations

The report makes many irrelevant or inaccurate observations that cast aspersions at the
University or dramatize the environment in which Dr. Clicks misconduct occurred. These
tactics distract from the real issues at hand and from Dr. Clicks misconduct. Fundamentally,
they miss the key points. Regardless of whether the University faces challenges related to
diversity and inclusion, and regardless of whether Dr. Click was involved in emotionally charged
events, she had a responsibility to conduct herself in a professional manner befitting a faculty
member. And the Board had a responsibility to address her misconduct when others failed to do
so. Indeed, the Board acknowledged in its decision that Dr. Click acted in a tense environment.
It simply found that this did not excuse her actions.

The report borrows a single op-ed pieces criticism of decisions related to the University of
Missouri Press and graduate student tuition waivers and health insurance. Report at 3. These
are irrelevant not only because they cannot excuse Dr. Clicks misconduct, but also because
the decision-makers in those matters had nothing to do with the decision to dismiss Dr. Click.

Further, it is inappropriate to describe these matters through the lens of one individuals
opinion and rhetorical perspective, by which the report borrows inflammatory wording.
The report repeatedly cites other opinions or assertions of individual observers, uncritically
adopting them as premises for its analysis. In doing so, the report loses objectivity.
The report is implicitly critical of the Universitys efforts to provide security at Carnahan
Quadrangle. It seems to imply that providing security should have entailed deployment of
uniformed officers in the midst of protesters and members of the public on Carnahan
Quadrangle, or otherwise actively tried to organize or supervise those present. Report at 4.
This opinion is both uninformed and unsupported. The Universitys police department and
other staff were successful in providing security with respect to events on Carnahan
Quadrangle. The events remained peaceful and nobody was harmed, notwithstanding Dr.
Clicks call for force against Mr. Schierbecker. The Universitys police officials made a wise
tactical judgment to have officers nearby and ready to respond but not in the midst of
protesters, where their presence or other efforts to organize or supervise protestors might
have enhanced tensions. Further, when a threat of violence was made on Yik Yak following
protests, the Universitys police responded immediately and quickly made an arrest.
The report notes that former President Wolfe had no prior experience in higher education and
refers to his appointment as part of a chain of events. Report at 2. But President Wolfe
was not involved in the decision to dismiss Dr. Click and the report does not show how his
appointment or prior experience had any bearing on that matter. If the point is to imply that
campus unrest would not have occurred under a different president, that is wholly speculative
and does nothing to excuse Dr. Clicks misconduct in any event.
The report states, Three seats on the board are currently vacant, with resignations of two
African American members of the board occurring during the events recounted in this
report. Report at 2. The reference to resignations by African-American members gives a
false impression that their resignations were related to race or campus unrest.
The report states, It might also be noted that the absence from the board of one-third of its
members, including two African American members who resigned within days of each other
and within days of the curators decision to investigate Professor Click, raises troubling
questions about the boards functioning in this matter, although both of those who resigned
claimed publicly to be doing so for personal reasons unrelated to events at MU. Report at
16, n. 14. The report identifies no basis whatsoever to question the truthfulness of public
statements by the two resigning Board members.
The report notes, The institution first began to admit African American students in 1950,
and, in 2014, 8.2 percent of the institutions student body was African American. Report at
1. The University understands its history and recognizes that it faces challenges related to
diversity and inclusion. In this it is not unique and it is moving forthrightly to address those
challenges. But if these items are worthy of mention as contextual information, then in
fairness the report should mention that the University has engaged in many efforts of the last
two decades to achieve greater diversity in its student body and that the student bodys
proportion of African American students has grown significantly in that time.
The report addresses protests in Ferguson. Report at 3. This is irrelevant and appears to be
an attempt to associate the University with controversial events in Ferguson, in which the
10

University played no role. If events in Ferguson are to be discussed, fairness demands that
the report discuss how the Universitys reactions to protests in the fall of 2015 contrasted
dramatically with reactions to protests in Ferguson and how the protests on campus remained
peaceful, notwithstanding Dr. Clicks call for force against Mr. Schierbecker.
The report discusses changes in recommendations on Dr. Clicks tenure application that
occurred after her misconduct. It states, It is impossible to determine to what degree these
changes of position were products of sincere and independent reconsideration in light of
subsequent events and to what degree they were a consequence of some sort of external
pressure. Report at 15. The report identifies no evidence of external pressure, so this is
speculation. These changes in recommendation had no bearing on Dr. Clicks dismissal and
thus are irrelevant.
In footnote 9, the report states, It is worth noting that when the board posted a copy of this
letter on its website, it neglected to redact from the letter Professor Click's home address,
which, given the threats she had received and was still receiving, needlessly endangered her,
her husband, who is also a professor at MU, and their small children.
o Despite information from the University, the report fails to note that Dr. Clicks home
address was redacted from the first letter that was posted to the Universitys website.
The inclusion of the address in the subsequent letter posted to the website was an
oversight and the address was redacted promptly after the matter was brought to the
Universitys attention by Dr. Clicks attorney.
o The report offers no support for the statement that Dr. Click or her family were
endangered and no evidence that they came to harm as a result of the posting of the
letter. Further, this observation implies that the posting presented a unique problem
for Dr. Click and her family, even though her address was well known and publicly
available by other means.

11