case i would suggest to you that it's particularly salient in this case to clarify what is the law in with regard to whether you can keep a tenure track professor at a public tenure you can't you operate the same as if you had tenure no sir but you do have time the reason you're put on tenure track of course is because you turn on a certain status at the university and never does that give you honor that he's entitled to continued employment or that he's entitled to ten years but he is entitle to the third year review that the employee handbook that subsumed into his written contract contends he isn't title to the procedural rights that this court is indorsed in whiting the you assume in samuel the holmes mississippi supreme court in robinson and bob it all those cases stand for the proposition at the procedural rights that are ingrained  from the university on the wrone us information that certainly genuinely disputed indeed ultimately the university itself agree that the that the claim made by this career student was inaccurate and of course indicated he would be involvement that he had never shot a student and never intended to but he's thought about it is thought about it a lot that's what he allegedly said keep in mind the university a few months later and for disagreeing with him that's a completely different kettle of fish than taking that to another point now what the point of course from a legal listing perspective we're making is that due process kicks in from the moment that he's going to be kept from having his written contract it here too in this case and it's very important he had a written express contract that said well the contract essentially gave him employment until june of the following year and then the one condition that the conditions are contained in the employee handbook that's why the employee have a becomes in part of a sorrow there were it was a conditional appointment what were the conditions on the criteria for bait to news one thing and second of all it gives him the opportunity to refute the charge that was made against him and i use that term loosely because one of the points was he kept trying to find was the university making an my letters and i have in the exhibit show what does the university step what's the university's position and the university never literally never would say what the university is and into t v was stating and indeed the precipitating instant quote unquote two years yes yes no i'm up suggesting that what i said and that's what my point is i mean maybe they believed him and they just said you know this guy's trouble he's a troublemaker even though we don't think he's a threat we don't want to we don't hear him for the next year they have think but i would respectfully disagree with that ma'am i would suggest to you that he has a right to a due process hearing right then and there as to the as to the incident and it's important that now this would have come up as a right to a hearing the whiting case this court has concluded that that those procedural rights attorney now what would have occurred in those rights we would have to speculate but we wouldn't have to speculate that if the if the that he had the right to disavow what was said and maintain and clear his money one of the other certainly in aspects of this case is that he asked for a name clearing hearing right now tell me how his name was impugned what kind of conduct was engaged in by the university or any of its agents that in his integrity all of those all of the first of all he was literally more out of the campus by two armed policeman in public view of the entire university second of all the university of representatives to include miss davis and even the student mr heene and it was it was quote the talk of the campus unquote third of all went to a doctor and get you know where really if they did not specifically disseminate it does it use to particular defendants in this case but the defendants in take any proactive process because the university attorney as the evidence shows agreed that he was entitled to due process and indeed they wanted him to wait writes quote unquote there really has never been  that your are but in fact you can't it's it in the reason i think this case is significant is is really a concern about if you will having young professors come to universities and they get a handbook and are told we're going to get these and what the hymn book that limits that they can do anything they want to for the first two years and if they do well the third year and have checked on at the end there and you know your honor but it doesn't mean they cannot engage in any kind of  certain criminal conduct or anything that misconduct having account of serious nature yes or but he's a title it was because of the grievance procedure we haven't discussed the grievance procedure and one of the grievance procedure the reason that exists i to is to address issues such as that the point would become it keeps one from being characterized as a quote criminal on quote even though he never really was it was intimated that never really characterize what but he never engaged any misconduct it keeps from being ambushed if you will do any arbitrary action and of course conceivably that if it was arbitrary capricious if it was done in the manner in a willy nilly manner which we say it was that arguably does trigger a terminated him and says well we don't accept this except the word of the witnesses said that you made these valid threats and so you were terminated that would have been the end of his legal documents but told his client not to appear which to chase didn't come on the morning of june twenty second curriculum that was the attorney for the university at that time he even sent an e mail to mr chase and said i know you said basically you're not coming on it but we really think you ought to come show up he didn't show up he didn't come but he sent documents but he did go in areas that he was trying to set the university up because he knew that that the information that was presented clearly showed that the actions the university were more reasonable but i think it's important that when the like why did the university do that they knew they had a conflict in statements there that he said he didn't see it you had witnesses said me i can answer that you want to by going back in time we go back to november the mind which was the day that the statement was made to mr hayne and the graduate assistant mr hand and explained that that he had been in active shooter training we for with professor they'd been shooting to universities and virginia to the shootings in alabama and the university of southern mississippi was training all of their staff an administrator is to be on the lookout for anyone that said anything that might be a tip that th before but what that student said does not bother me but i've been thinking about it a lot and thinking about it a lot coupled with as you see from the state of mr hand the very agitated and very irrational behavior active shooter training told him reporting so he did at that point the university did the chair of the department dr norton dr black with the dean of the department and they got several people together and they said it was different but they're similar to what mr handed said so the university then proceeded with notifying about playing that he was to stay off campus they were going to investigate what in that notice was given what research from home he was given his his computer he had access to it and there was reference made that he was not to contact students while the investigation was ongoing what happen is that during the time when the record has several instances of this doctor there was a comment that was made earlier that that he may have been a problem i go back to claiming i had been reassigned in october from teaching face to face with students to just on line classes they had been other instances and other issues when the investigation was ongoing and we had the december the christmas break and things and when they returned from christmas break they found out that dr plainly has posted a series of things on the internet he breaks confidentiality our handbook has written numerous instances that i can cite to you but it talks about why you think you got the process and why you think you replied with a deep process procedures in the hand that he got due process because that when you look at what's agreements requirements off in requires that the chair the department and he was simply reassigned and they did the pretty decision it talks pacifically about their similar situation the only difference was to create was a tenured faculty member versus and non tenured back in the member here but he was reassigned to the research and the reason he got he got all of the due process he would be entitled to own it was because after the on the dane investigated he was he was provided the information on there was a change in the known protocol counsel opposite worked very closely with university officials and said let's dispense with the regular rules let's just have one hearing and not go through all these little rules the universe of this is that all right and then called the global hearing because under the pot under the rules you're entitle under the grievance to have everything reviewed on the grievance conference that was done on june twenty second and dr clinger then said i want to appeal it because this is so in the process and showing the due process that he was providing those records show from the cac and this is dated august the third of the two thousand the level that there were four issues that dr clinger said i'm aggrieved about he said i didn't get my annual review council opposite mentioned that seriously he says we've investigated this there's no indication about the playing submitted material for annual review he does with whom we didn't do anything it's a two page document they looked at all that the core issues the non renewal of them all men and they said what the university did and the course from a year he had to be more than two years so in order to non renew him you have to give him reason one noticed and because it on this occurred in november he actually got to finish his year two thousand and ten and eleven and we paid him another four years another twelve months after that  convene a university and visor committee made up of representatives from all of the different products that committee reviewed in december of two thousand and eleven their decision came back and said we  that was required simply because the case law clearly shows that he's put in that there was no doubt on deprivation of a property interest because his contract says we will pay you to work at the university the university can describe where he works and how he works professor he said that he was concerned about interaction with students he was concerned over student safety and he was concerned dr lyman said i felt that his contr conduct his intentional disregard for the instructions of the university where the crucial factor in determining to this was not a professor we wanted him to stay around because they told him not to talk to anybody he went out and talked he goes to facebook he goes to he went to far as general hospital and the police reporters here showing that he knocks on the door as a graduate student as is visiting her grandmother who's in the hospital and he says oh i  i heard her voice and she's concerned that she had posted on facebook she was going there she's concerned he's following there on the record shows that she notified the hospital security to walk her to a car then she notified the university police to tell them i don't know what's going on but this guy came up to the fifth floor of the hospital knocked on the door when i'm visiting my grandmother and tells me the university has told me i can't talk to anybody when did this occur december the thirtieth two thousand and ten during is to the reason that they decided on february the eighteenth not to renew his congress it was this this series of events it wasn't one event it was a series of events that occurred told us the graduate student at the hospital those things we were not out asking people to tell us what he's saying because it was a competent investigation and we simply have the right your honor not to renew a contract for non tenured profession and that's all that we did he filed a grievance and we followed all of the grievance requirements in the in the faculty handbook sections twelve point one two three four five and six say what we're supposed to do and we followed all of those we did not follow all of th known to the extent that there are some deadlines in there in the dupree decision the court specifically said that decisions concerning teaching assignment pay increases administrative matters and departmental procedures while it may put into the person do not rise to the level of constitutional deprivation and to the extent that there were times that it something may have said ten days and it took twenty day to thirty days  submitted that doesn't drive to constitutional deprivation of rights and that some of that was caused because of intervention a council on it but it's not a constitutional issue and we found that the district court correctly identified those if the court please first on this research issue the the letter that ultimately terminated him of february of two thousand and eleven specifically said the research would be key to us providing you research topics a repeated request give us some research topics we didn't he didn't even get that there was no real he couldn't just go research on the meaning of life he had been given something and he never was i mean that's and it's very important i mean he was to the point becoming with all due respect to kelso opposite it wasn't that he didn't provide anything he wouldn't give an opportunity to teach the three areas or teaching service and reasons that bear on the on the legal issues t that you are because mr understood mr norton he was saying that when it one of the committee meetings about this that he didn't provide anything and he was because that's exactly our point he was cut off from satisfying those three salient criteria completely it was like saying ok if you do if you'd accomplish teaching service and research and do a good job you got it you're going to be tenured if you made a stand he was a he wasn't allowed we're not talking back that we're talking about he was a scored off campus and he said using tomtom prime tearing after that just mean he got some he got hearings now the question is why do you say what he got about the incident not other things why did why was the process he got not due process and constitution well first of all it wasn't a problem it was posed to the whole process constitute it didn't meet the the contract maybe but it did a car wh f he says he offered you that hearing you didn't show up and the reason we wrote and told the university that they stacked the deck in those words were used what they did with the very person who was going to have the hearing is the very accuser and present your mom but that wasn't that wasn't the hearing though your honor that that was in plug that those those that that horse was out of the barn and in the pasture by that point they're talking about a hearing in june of the following year and not in front of the president mean it was done that day period and they knew full well as a matter of law and as a matter of equity as a matter of simple decency if you're going to accuse a professor of something like that he's entitled to an immediate hearing understand what i said it could be done at the same here and yes i was i mean a fake he comes in and they said this is the reason we fired and he says no it's not the reason and firing he puts on his witnesses and his name is clear from his witnesses point of view and this said you know thank you very much we have your arguments and you certainly did not waive any arguing