On August 14, 2015, Dr. Joel Lewis, a history professor at Dixie State University, was surreptitiously lured into a meeting under the guise of it being an informal inquiry about an incident that had occurred in the spring semester regarding the firing of theater professor Varlo Davenport. The end result was that President Biff Williams — and DSU by extension — along with four other members of faculty and administration coerced Lewis to think he had committed grave acts against the alleged victim in the case and further coerced him to resign his position under the illusion that he wanted a leave of absence.
Coercion is defined by a legal dictionary website as such:
“The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another’s freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim’s reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.”
Lewis was a respected, eminently qualified professor who under no circumstances would have opted to leave his hard-earned position at the school unless under some form of duress.
The backstory
As has been heavily written about here at the Indy as well as in other publications, Varlo Davenport was fired under suspicious circumstances involving multiple violations of policies and procedures as well as state and federal laws. The alleged victim, who will not be named here, remains just that — alleged. Because the ominous and questionably delayed producing of a criminal charge months after the event is still being tried in court. This is to say that not only is the status of victimhood alleged, the accused is innocent at present … though you would hardly think anyone at the college or the city knows that.
On March 3, 2015, Lewis offered his class an alternative midterm in light of the current events. He provided documents that were published by Davenport’s brother-in-law and a witness to the alleged assault, Lizzy Peterson. He discussed with the class that the narrative about the event and Davenport being presented by the college was one side of the story. But he encouraged the class to consider the possibility of another side of the story. The assignment would be to do some fact-finding on their own and write an opinion piece for the school newspaper. It was a wholly academic exercise in critical thinking.
On the same day, it is alleged that a student from the class brought complaint of this assignment to DSU’s vice president at the time, Bill Christensen. The result was that Lewis was convinced by Christensen that the assignment was inappropriate because it could negatively affect the alleged victim, and Lewis rescinded the assignment in writing to the class. The time between the issuing of the assignment and its removal was eight hours. It could reasonably be asserted that at this point that Lewis’ rights were being violated as this appears to be a classic example of First Amendment retaliation, a federal offense.
Nothing else came of the event until just before the fall semester of 2015.
The meeting
Lewis was traveling out of state when he was notified that he was urgently required to meet with Williams and presumably the other people present at the meeting.
The people were Carole Grady, interim vice president; Richard Featherstone, dean of the School of Humanities; Nancy Hauck, Faculty Senate president-elect; and Erin O’Brien, Faculty Senate president.
Prior to the meeting, Lewis strenuously inquired as to the nature of the meeting and asked if he needed representation. He was assured that it was an informal fact-finding meeting and that no such representation was needed.
He was lied to.
In the meeting, Williams and the others reviewed the day of the assignment and asked questions as to Lewis’ intentions. He acquiesced to the possibility of the assignment being inappropriate but defended its intentions as being consistent with something students would be encouraged to engage in at a university, where the free exchange of ideas is protected under law.
Lewis was told two categorical untruths that shook him greatly.
The first was the claim that the alleged victim had received specific cyber-bullying as a direct result of his assignment. When Lewis asked for evidence of such, it was denied by Williams who assured him it had happened.
It is now known that no such specific allegations were made by the alleged victim in any of her statements.
The second falsity occurred when Williams told Lewis that the school was at that time being sued by the alleged victim’s parents and that the assignment could have negative implications on not only the suit but on Lewis’ career. A search reveals that to this day no lawsuit in the matter has been filed in state or federal court. (This does not preclude the possibility of an out-of-court settlement being reached, but at present none has been reported.) Also, a later report by campus police states that no law suit had been filed.
The result of this intimidation was that Lewis became fearful that he had been lured into a meeting that was tantamount to a career firing squad. He pleaded and insisted emphatically of his good intentions, his character, and his record — but to no avail.
Williams then brought forth, by way of what could be characterized as psychological manipulation, the fact that Lewis was up for tenure. He told Lewis that because of the incident, he felt that he could not support it and that he was confident that the Board of Trustees also would not support a tenure for him. Essentially, this was tantamount to telling him he was out of a job.
Lewis pleaded again, to no avail.
Williams told Lewis that he could fight it but that he felt concern for Lewis’ career — that if it were somehow brought about in the fictitious lawsuit, Lewis would be implicated in wrongdoing. Williams even went as far to say that he was concerned that if someone were to search Lewis on the web and find out about it, it could go badly for him and his career.
In essence, Williams appeared to be threatening to blacklist the professor if he fought this illicit, illegitimate meeting.
Understand that this meeting was not in accordance with anything resembling what is mandated by the policies and procedures and that not one person from the human resources department was included.
It appears this meeting was about retaliation on the part of Williams toward a professor who was providing an alternative narrative to the one Williams wanted everyone to hear.
In fact, at around the same time, while Williams was under fire not only from the press but from the general public who were writing to him as well as to the Board of Regents, Director of Public Relations Steve Johnson prepared a statement for Williams to release, “once Varlo Davenport is booked and the charges become public,” according to Johnson.
The statement said that now that Davenport had been booked, the ends justified the means, and that Williams’ decision to override the unanimous exoneration of Davenport by a faculty hearing was due to the finding being inconsistent with evidence he claimed to have at the time he made the decision … evidence that would not even be sought until more than two months later, in point of fact.
The contract
A contract was prepared for Lewis by the Utah Attorney General’s Office via Michael Carter that in essence guaranteed Lewis one year of his nearly $50,000 salary and benefits as well as his $7,500 stipend for being the department chair. In exchange, Lewis would be bound to silence and was to hold the college innocent of any of the illegality of the deal being struck.
Lewis was required to lie to all of his family, friends, and peers and tell them he had applied for a leave of absence. In addition, to maintain the silencing, he asked people to respect his (forced) decision and privacy.
In the background, Director of Campus Security Don Reid was also telling Williams that if Lewis resisted, he could be charged with witness tampering, a categorically false claim and and threat. (It appears to be trend at DSU that when someone in upper administration has an issue of any kind with a person, Reid will search for evidence of a crime rather than investigate what actually happened).
Lewis was railroaded by not only Williams and the four others at that meeting but by DSU, the Board of Trustees by way of inference, and the Attorney General’s Office by way of Carter. Lewis gave this statement:
“President Williams was not forthright about the nature of the meeting he called in August. He personally assured me it was an informal fact-finding gathering where I did not require the legal counsel I had requested. Based on this false assurance, I naively entered into the meeting in good faith. In his opening statements, the President informed the room he would not be supporting my application for tenure, which is a notice of contract termination for junior faculty. Since President Williams took office, a number of dedicated DSU employees have had their professional relationship with the institution terminated and personal lives publicly scrutinized under suspect circumstances. Due to these circumstances, I do not feel comfortable making any further public comments concerning his administration for fear of further unwarranted retaliation. My wife and I are just trying to get on with our lives.”
It should be noted here that this deal appears to be in essence hush money in exchange for silence offered under duress and implied, if not direct, threat. If Williams, the Board of Trustees, and the administration legitimately thought a case against Lewis was present, there would have been no compunction to pay him under the guise of a leave of absence; rather, they could have followed policies and procedures to discipline and or terminate his employment.
Williams and the four others in the meetings were reached out to for comment with the presumed understanding that they might be unable to do so. However, they were given short notice to do so, and as I am also currently a student at the school, I have credible reason to fear retaliation myself.
Fear of this institution and beyond
Lewis fears retaliation, along with a host of other professors, faculty, and staff at DSU. In the course of investigating this story over the last year, I have spoken to numerous individuals who did not know the details of Lewis’ sudden and uncharacteristic disappearance but suspected that he had been targeted. As it turns out, they may be justified in that fear.
At one point in the meeting, Williams asked Lewis why he was concerned about Davenport at all, saying that the incident had nothing to do with him.
But the fact is that it did. And it does.
It has something to do with every person at that school and this town.
It has something to do with you, me, and everyone we know.
Because what is at stake in this entire thing is not only Lewis’ and Davenport’s lives but the legitimacy and integrity of Williams and DSU at large as well as the legality of the judicial process in this city. What is at stake is human dignity and its violation, whereby the life and career of perhaps one man and his accomplices is being placed above anyone else’s — at all cost.
Supposing that this is an isolated incident with Williams and friends, and while there are suggestions to the contrary, by this incident alone I would assert that it may well be time now for the faculty to take a stand and submit a vote of no confidence for Williams … for the sake not only of those already affected but for the sake of the school.
See you out there.
RELATED ARTICLES
Dixie State tried to coerce a grade from Varlo Davenport
The Varlo Davenport circus is an abomination of the highest degree
The Varlo Davenport debacle: It’s getting beyond surreal
Davenport and Lewis are not the only professors who have been unjustly treated by the administration at DSU. It seems to be an unsavory trend.
Biff Williams is a real gem. Maybe this is what you get when you hire someone with such poor academic credentials. When he took the helm a lot of us wondered exactly what qualified him for the job. The BOT really bungled this one and should all resign.
It seems with all of the bad press at the University, that they are trying to hide behind the current change of name and mascot and hide bad publicity, through “positive” changes at the school.
As a side note: Dallas, can we start referring to the current administration as Professor Umbridge and Voldomort? This is referring to great fictional literature, kind of like the fiction that is being told by the DSU Administration.
Religious beliefs ? Sometimes what he is doing and has done is really embarrassing!!
This is not the same school I attended. This kind of plotting, exploitation and lies needs to be removed. It begins with getting rid of Williams and not voting for current board of regents this November. We should ask each regent who is up for election if they support Varlo Davenport. If the answer is NO, so should be our vote for that person. They work for us, the people. That also applies for the judges and Attorney Generals offices of this case as well.
Are regents elected positions? Do the candidates and offices appear on the general election ballot?
Regents are appointed by the Governor. Board of Trustee members are appointed positions. Faculty Senate President and President-Elect are elected positions on the DSU campus, and all full-time faculty are eligible to vote for those positions.
The stench emanating from DSU is akin to an open sewer. Thanks for keeping the citizens of St. George informed as to the criminal activities going on in all our names by a corrupt administration. I will never support this institution until they have the ethics and integrity to clean house.
It’s time for Williams to change his nickname from Biff to Thug.
The State Board of Regents and the Commissioner of Higher Education has oversight responsibility for Dixie. Letters to the Board and Commissioner requesting an investigation should be written.
The State Legislature was happy to start an audit of the U of U athletic program when the U cancelled games with BYU. An election year is an ideal time to ask candidates for the State Legislature to commit to finding out what the hell is going on at Dixie.
I am in complete support of not having both Varlow and Lewis on the DSU campus anymore. The student (particularly female students) are better off without them. I applaud president Williams for insisting on professional conduct from the faculty. It is ironic that this article is leaving out very relative information regarding the Lewis situation. The one sided narrative they are accusing the school administration of is exactly the kind of false one sided narrative the author of this article is guilty of.
How are the female students better off? Lewis organized all kinds of student support programs such as Take Back the Night.
I am sure Lewis was more than happy to walk around at night with a bunch of women.
Implying things is no evidence.
What do you want me to do? Post a picture? Because the reply forum won’t let me.
So you’re saying you have a picture, but you can’t post it here?
What I am saying is that I have absolutely zero fear of libelous recourse.
Also, what’s the other half of the story? Enlighten us.
If you want enlightenment join a church. All I can offer is sleazy gossip.
Mrs. Willard,
You make some pretty hard charges here but they are in the same unsubstantiated fashion as the people written about in this article. I assure you, I investigated this matter very thoroughly and the conclusions drawn and written about can be verified quite succinctly. If you are really a student at DSU, and you have pertinent and relevant information, you may contact me at dallas@suindependent.com and I will give as much attention to it as I have everything else in this story.
Dallas Hyland
Senior Writer/Columnist/Photo Editor
Southern Utah Independent
Thanks for posting my last name… (Eye roll). I am sure what you have published is thoroughly investigated. Why is it in the Opinion section? Is it because it’s a biaed report?
Now here is the true class of Dallas Hyland. His paper gives the air of anonymity to those who post contrary positions and then expose that anonymity when he does not like the comments. What a Professional Journalist, NOT! Why would anyone ever trust you with any information. You are a joke on the University campus. As for you investigating this issue thoroughly, what a laugh. If you had really found out anything, you would have given Williams a lot more credit for having the guts to take a stand.
Now here is the true class of Dallas Hyland. His paper gives the air of anonymity to those who post contrary positions and then expose that anonymity when he does not like the comments. What a Professional Journalist, NOT! Why would anyone ever trust you with any information. You are a joke on the University campus. As for you investigating this issue thoroughly, what a laugh. If you had really found out anything, you would have given Williams a lot more credit for having the guts to take a stand. And talking about libelous statements. Williams should have plenty on you, but maybe that is yet to come.
“In the background, Director of Campus Security Don Reid was also telling Williams that if Lewis resisted, he could be charged with witness tampering, a categorically false claim and and threat.” – This is absolutely frightening. And it definitely seems to shed some light on the Davenport case. If this is true, Reid and Williams are criminals and should be investigated by a higher impartial authority.
Gee, I wonder how a “current dsu student” knows about the “very relative” (btw, the word you want is ‘relevant’) information that is supposedly being left out–even if such information exists, only a dsu administrator would know it. Which one are you? Glad you are reading. All that’s missing in Mr. Hyland’s piece is the dsu spin, which you’ve attempted to insert: “Williams was just insisting on professional conduct”. Uh-huh, sounds like he’s a real stickler for the old “professional conduct”. If that’s true he should fire Don Reid and then resign. Oh, and your insinuation about the safety of female students is odd (and calculated), since neither professor is accused of any kind of predatory action with respect to the female gender.
Oh wow! You caught the spelling error. You must be the current professor “X=your last name” at DSU. Oh no, now I am so embarrassed to inform you that the miss spelling was humerously intentional. (If you need go ask someone how relatives are made.) My source is that college girls are hardly Fort Knox. So let me make my “calculated” statements more clear.
The entire female student body at DSU is by far better off without the predatory behavior of Varlow and Lewis!!!
Years ago my husband (a tall and lean 280lb man) had a class with Varlow. It’s odd, Varlow never attempted his “academic hair pulling method” on him (or any of the other male students during my husbands time at DSU) but he did witness Varlow useing the “technique” on a young blond girl.
Please understand, I know where you are coming from. If I taught at DSU I would also want my co-workers to be abusive gutter scum that are sure to be fired before me. Everyone likes having a canary or two with them in the mines.
Mrs. Victoria Willard,
Ordinarily I would use my position as a moderator to remove this unsubstantiated and libelous statement. However, I will leave it up as one, an example of the mentality that creates these very issues. And second, and I mean this, so that the two individuals you just maliciously and publicly defamed have proof should they choose to seek recourse.
Dallas Hyland
Senior Writer/Columnist/Photo Editor
Southern Utah Independent
Don’t think for a second I can’t “substantiate” it.
You go, girl!
Bring it. My middle name is Lee.
You just said all you can offer is sleazy gossip. Now you say you can substantiate it. Which is it? Why don’t you substantiate your claims?
Sleazy gossip and substantiation are not mutually exclusive.
L had Joel Lewis before I transferred zero he might be qualified to teach jr. High history. DSU was a real mixed bag, glad to have moved up in schools.
It’s good you’re happy in your new circumstances. But I’ve read this article a few times and I don’t see how Joel Lewis’s qualifications as an historian or as a teacher of history are relevant. They’re not. This is about the dishonest and thuggish behavior of a university president.
It’s a culture issue. The same problem of accusing and assuming illegal actions instead of looking into things first, is not only applied to teachers at times, but students as well. My experience comes from many years previous with i believe different leadership. So blaming one person may not be consistent in my book.
Wow. In THIS community a specific allegation of disparate treatment of two genders in a classroom several years ago includes no relevant “makes it worse” factoids like “X [number] of those male students had hair long enough to pull” and/or “no male students were subjected to any physical contact of any sort during the alleged ‘exercise'”.
So I’m going to leave all those still-unreported “sleazy rumors” which have been alluded to as if irrefutable facts (not “mutually exclusive”, you know) in the category of suspicious spin possibly directed by, prompted by, or presented by some one sympathizing with, a university administration perfectly willing to tamper with the administration of justice by scheduling unethical one-on-one meetings with a judge overseeing a lawsuit they are involved in.
Boo hoo. Mrs. “better off” has utterly failed to provide any level of substantiation or evidence or even rumor other than a single class from years ago. Her charges concern current conditions and current DSU students. Epic fail.
I’m not sure how to break this to you Curmudgeon, but this is the comment section of an opinion article of a local paper…its not a courtroom and you (an anonymous poster) have about as much authority to demand I provide you with substation and evidence as a toddler in a cowboy hat with a sheriffs badge. In fact, my opinions and statements would still be anonymous if Dallas had more respect for me, my experiences or my privacy. But whatever makes you feel better.