36. At best, the issue is whether Dr. Stokes' behavior was sufficiently serious to warrant termination, and the Hearing Officer concludes it was. Her belligerent behavior was not a mistake. She improperly impacted KSU administrators' proper functioning. And she unjustifiably denied five students' the opportunity to attend her classes in furtherance of their education. There can be no doubt that her actions warranted termination.
There is no question that Dr. Stokes was entitled to due process. She received it. She was given adequate notice of the charges, an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, and she was afforded an impartial decision maker.19
Without citing any instance in the record or offering any legal authority to justify her accusation, Dr. Stokes makes the bald statement that
the Petitioner was denied an impartial Hearing Officer. On more than one occasion the Hearing Officer interjected his personal bias when the Petitioner and her witnesses were testifying. The Hearing Officer acted in a manner more like a prosecutor than an impartial Hearing Officer.20
A hallmark of the impartiality of the decision maker is that “the decision maker should state the reasons for his determination and indicate the evidence he relied on.” Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 271 (1970). The evidence cited in this decision and the reasons stated speak for themselves. Dr. Stokes' own words spoken during meetings, written in emails, and made directly to administrators justify her termination.
This argument is completely without merit.
43