While the majority of the Southern Utah community seemed to rejoice at the verdict of not guilty passed down to Varlo Davenport after what had become an ever increasing circus of a trial (as covered to great extent by our own Dallas Hyland), the administration at DSU had a very different and, really, befuddling reaction.
By now, most of you have read or heard about the official statement Dixie State University released about the verdict, but for those of you who have been too busy catching Pokemon to read it, we’ve pasted it at the end of this article.
For a university in DSU’s place, after any trial where the outcome wasn’t what they wanted, to issue anything other than a statement of goodwill and best wishes to the acquitted crosses all kinds of lines, not just of good public relations, but tact and good judgment in general.
After reading the DSU statement, I spent the better part of my morning on the phone and social media discussing it with a handful of my friends who work in public relations. I shared the statement with them just to see if my dismay was unfounded. 
However, their reactions not only supported mine but went well beyond it. Several of them were certain that a move lacking as much common sense and situational awareness as the DSU statement did could end in only one way: one or more members of the administration stepping down. Others were so offended as professionals in the field that their reactions were littered with the kind of language which they are smart enough not to put in official statements.
I also reached out to Aaron Prisbey, Varlo Davenport’s lawyer, for his thoughts on the statement. He responded with the following:
“On July 13th and 14th, a Washington County jury patiently listened to a dozen witnesses testify in the matter of the City of St. George vs. Varlo Davenport. After deliberating for a relatively short period of time, the jury unanimously found Professor Davenport not guilty. This is the second time in as many proceedings that an unbiased group of citizens has unanimously found professor Davenport innocent of any wrongdoing. Both the jury and the five member Dixie State faculty review board heard all of the evidence and reached the same conclusion—innocent. That is our constitutional form of government in action.
The right of due process (exercised in front of the faculty review board) and the right to a jury trial are two of the fundamental rights that we have; Professor Davenport is ever grateful for the privilege he has had to assert these rights. However, within a couple hours of the jury’s verdict, Dixie State University issued a derisive “official statement” marginalizing this constitutional process. It not only belittled the verdict but also attacked the witnesses with unfounded allegations. This level of recklessness is unprecedented.
As an alumnus of Dixie State University, I am disheartened by the unfounded anonymous attacks on the character and reputation of truly innocent parties and the indifference towards the fundamental rights we all enjoy. Having tried cases for over two decades, I understand that emotions run high in contentious litigation. In that regard, the City of St. George, which prosecuted Mr. Davenport, walked away with respect for both the process and the individuals involved.
On the other hand, Dixie State University (while proclaiming it was a disinterested bystander) has inserted itself into a matter where it was not a party, demonstrating contempt for the constitutional process and disregard for the innocent people involved. Perhaps it is time for the alumni of this once proud institution to come together and demand that it begin to live up to the university status to which it aspires.”
As The Independent’s managing editor, I have tried my best to stay unbiased in regard to this case. I gladly admit that this has been a difficult task, but I would point to our continued coverage of so many of DSU’s positive achievements and events as a sign that, as an institution, we succeeded in that goal. In fact, this is the first time that I have made public comment on the trial or its surrounding events.
I have a great deal of love for DSU. I was fortunate to teach as a faculty member of its English department for four years. I still think of all the people in that department, and by extension all DSU faculty, as family. These people work far harder than they are paid to because that is the “Dixie Spirit” as I was so often reminded by the administration while working there. I love the students of DSU. I have seen students go on to find great success after graduating from the school.
It is because of those things, not in spite of them, that I feel I must add my voice to the hundreds of others expressing concern for the direction in which the current administration, specifically President Biff Williams and Don Reid, are pulling the university.
I have heard, in private conversations, these same thoughts from current DSU faculty; however, in each conversation they have feared for their livelihood should they publicly speak out against the institution or its administration. Universities are supposed to be bastions of free speech, not places where faculty and students feel a need to look over their shoulder before speaking.
People, let us not forget that Dixie State University is a public institution. It belongs to us. I believe it is time for us to start leveraging that ownership in whatever ways possible.
Dixie State University’s official statement regarding the Davenport verdict
“With the conclusion of the City of St. George vs. Varlo Davenport trial, Dixie State University can now fully comment on the incident that occurred in Davenport’s introductory acting class in November 2014 without hindering legal proceedings.
First, Dixie State University would like to acknowledge Davenport’s years of service to the institution. During his time at DSU, Davenport made positive contributions to the university’s theater program as well as to students’ development. However, the public should be aware that at the time of the incident, Davenport was on probation for aggressive behavior toward a fellow DSU employee. Even though the jury found Davenport not guilty of a misdemeanor charge of assault, the decision to terminate his employment was based on institutional policies and DSU’s commitment to keeping students safe.
Dixie State University did not take part in charges filed against Davenport; that was a decision made by the victim, who was a minor at the time of the incident, and her parents. Dixie State University stands firm by its decision to terminate Davenport’s employment at the institution. During Davenport’s faculty review hearing, he admitted to pulling the student’s hair for a long period of time. Furthermore, Davenport stated that this particular technique is not a typical physical restraint exercise. Student safety is a top priority at Dixie State University, and the institution will not tolerate inappropriate behavior of any kind toward its students.
During the trial, the defense presented evidence of the common practice of physical restraint exercises in acting classes. Defense witnesses stated that while using physical restraint techniques, it is standard to provide students with an explanation of such physical exercises and/or provide descriptions within their syllabi. The defense witnesses added that the restraints are not intended to be traumatic experiences for students and none of them presented testimony that they had ever pulled a student’s hair in the manner that Davenport did. DSU would like to clarify that Davenport had no mention of such techniques on his class syllabus nor did he ever provide verbal instructions before pulling the victim’s hair or ask for her express consent.
In the months leading up to the trial, the defense has made numerous false and inflammatory comments to the press and open court that misrepresented the university and its administration. These accusations were an attempt to take the focus off the assault charges and were an attempt at jury nullification.
The defense claimed that DSU did not cooperate with the defense’s discovery requests. However, Dixie State University has cooperated with every request from the court for information. Judge Read did not request emails related to Davenport’s administrative hearing, however, Judge Myers did, and the university immediately cooperated. The university believes the defense has abused the court system, particularly by filing a motion of contempt against President Richard B. Williams and calling for his arrest, and issuing subpoenas for the president and several DSU administrators to appear as defense witnesses. The university is pleased that Judge Myers saw through the unethical approach of the defense by denying the motion and subpoenas.
The grade the student received in Davenport’s class also became a point of discussion. Dixie State University cannot directly comment on these accusations, as discussing a student’s grades is a violation of The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The university can confirm that no improper actions took place concerning the student’s grade. The university can also confirm that the student didn’t receive any kind of offers or compensation in relation to the incident.
DSU is disappointed with the defense’s witnesses openly perjuring themselves in court, such as Davenport’s family member denying his relationship to the defendant when testifying on his behalf — which was admitted on the audio recordings of the faculty review hearing — and another witness denying personal relationships with Davenport. Additionally, several of the student witnesses stated that Davenport did not pull the student’s hair, which directly contradicts the audio recordings of the faculty review hearing and their own written statements.
Dixie State University respects the jury’s decision regarding the misdemeanor assault charge, but stands firm by its decision to terminate Davenport’s employment at the institution. DSU will always uphold policies and procedures that protect its students, faculty and staff.”
RELATED ARTICLES
Varlo Davenport verdict is in: Not Guilty
Judge Karlin Myers tries to gag press in Davenport case
Wow — DSU accuses defense witnesses of perjury! Obviously, Biff has learned that the best defense is a strong offense. He’s gotten about as offensive as one can get without physically attacking Mr. Davenport and Mr. Prisbrey. If I were them, though, I would be watching my back!
Thanks to Biff and company, DSU students are getting the opportunity to see a preview of what a Trump presidency (aka totalitarian dictatorship) would look like.
Best of luck to the underpaid teaching staff at DSU. The walls have ears. One slip of the tongue and you could become the next notch on Biff’s gunstock.
Totally agree!
Williams is clearly unsuited to be president of a university. He appears to be a willful and spiteful little man throwing a tantrum because he was thwarted in his desire to run Dixie State as his personal fiefdom.
I am reluctant to inflict more pain on the people of Short Creek than they now endure, but Mohave Community College has a branch in Colorado City. It is probably more of a size and scope suitable for Williams’ capabilities.
As a previous student leader at DSU, I had the opportunity to see President Biff Williams in many public and private settings. I hold him in high regard, and can say with confidence that He is a good man with a great Love for Dixie and this community.
You are lashing out at him, just as you claim others have done against Varlo. You are, yourself, lowering yourself to the same behavior that you are condemning others of having.
You don’t know the facts. Don’t pretend to be the expert of a scenario you truly don’t know, or understand.
M, I assure you that my opinion in this matter is based entirely on facts. Over the course of this circus, I have had the chance to see and hear more than enough to leave me confident that we aren’t “lashing out.” We are calling for accountability at a public institution. I wish I could share everything I’ve been privy to with you, but it is not my call if and when those things will be released.
Here is what your argument amounts to: “I saw this person do something good; therefore, he cannot have done anything bad.” It’s emotionally-laden and anecdotal but says nothing about the actual situation at hand. To capitalize “He” brings the weirdness of it to a rapid boil.
Making an accusation that someone “does not know the facts” would be quite effective if followed by said missing facts. Followed by silence, however, it amounts to empty bravado. By all means, do provide the public with the missing facts if you are legally able. Indeed, it is your responsibility to do so. Write a letter to the editor and submit it to The Independent, and we will gladly publish it in the interest of truth and public dialogue.
But you may as well save the posturing and talk of unknown facts and expertise if you can’t or won’t deliver your own.
Now what about the faculty that were forced to leave the school because they told student to research the history of the case? Dr. Joel Lewis was forced ut of his position for exactly that. He told his student not to take the case at face value as the administration put it. He had them research for themselves and write a paper on it. The upper administration forced his out for that.