Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Did you read the linked article? Kim testified independence is one of the most critical factors in a tenure process. It is not a criterion Purdue made up just for this woman.

+1. From the testimony so far, I think Ishii was way beyond the pale in terms of his racism and misogyny. But I don't think application of the independence criterion is evidence of it. That said, I would not be surprised if the plaintiff responded with evidence and/or argument that the independence rationale was a pretext.

I don't believe ishii is a racist. Kim, a Korean native, testified he's have to conscientiously distance himself from ishii - a Tokyo native and his former mentor - even as ishii was professionally pulling for him to succeed. For a tokyo native to vet for a Korean native is similar to a Jewish prof pullong for his Palestinian protegee to succeed, or a German Nazi pulling for a Jewish protegee. Something's not right about the plaintiff's case.

Ishii is definitely a racist. You seem to have missed the many witnesses who have testified that the man repeatedly characterized white men as "lazy and stupid."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Did you read the linked article? Kim testified independence is one of the most critical factors in a tenure process. It is not a criterion Purdue made up just for this woman.

+1. From the testimony so far, I think Ishii was way beyond the pale in terms of his racism and misogyny. But I don't think application of the independence criterion is evidence of it. That said, I would not be surprised if the plaintiff responded with evidence and/or argument that the independence rationale was a pretext.

I don't believe ishii is a racist. Kim, a Korean native, testified he's have to conscientiously distance himself from ishii - a Tokyo native and his former mentor - even as ishii was professionally pulling for him to succeed. For a tokyo native to vet for a Korean native is similar to a Jewish prof pullong for his Palestinian protegee to succeed, or a German Nazi pulling for a Jewish protegee. Something's not right about the plaintiff's case.

Ishii is definitely a racist. You seem to have missed the many witnesses who have testified that the man repeatedly characterized white men as "lazy and stupid."

And for a jury trial in Indiana, that will probably be enough

Shouldn’t it be?

Yes. But a racist asian belittling white people combined with a xenophobic jury has to be making Purdue's insurers sweat

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Did you read the linked article? Kim testified independence is one of the most critical factors in a tenure process. It is not a criterion Purdue made up just for this woman.

+1. From the testimony so far, I think Ishii was way beyond the pale in terms of his racism and misogyny. But I don't think application of the independence criterion is evidence of it. That said, I would not be surprised if the plaintiff responded with evidence and/or argument that the independence rationale was a pretext.

I don't believe ishii is a racist. Kim, a Korean native, testified he's have to conscientiously distance himself from ishii - a Tokyo native and his former mentor - even as ishii was professionally pulling for him to succeed. For a tokyo native to vet for a Korean native is similar to a Jewish prof pullong for his Palestinian protegee to succeed, or a German Nazi pulling for a Jewish protegee. Something's not right about the plaintiff's case.

Ishii is definitely a racist. You seem to have missed the many witnesses who have testified that the man repeatedly characterized white men as "lazy and stupid."

And for a jury trial in Indiana, that will probably be enough

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Did you read the linked article? Kim testified independence is one of the most critical factors in a tenure process. It is not a criterion Purdue made up just for this woman.

+1. From the testimony so far, I think Ishii was way beyond the pale in terms of his racism and misogyny. But I don't think application of the independence criterion is evidence of it. That said, I would not be surprised if the plaintiff responded with evidence and/or argument that the independence rationale was a pretext.

I don't believe ishii is a racist. Kim, a Korean native, testified he's have to conscientiously distance himself from ishii - a Tokyo native and his former mentor - even as ishii was professionally pulling for him to succeed. For a tokyo native to vet for a Korean native is similar to a Jewish prof pullong for his Palestinian protegee to succeed, or a German Nazi pulling for a Jewish protegee. Something's not right about the plaintiff's case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Did you read the linked article? Kim testified independence is one of the most critical factors in a tenure process. It is not a criterion Purdue made up just for this woman.

+1. From the testimony so far, I think Ishii was way beyond the pale in terms of his racism and misogyny. But I don't think application of the independence criterion is evidence of it. That said, I would not be surprised if the plaintiff responded with evidence and/or argument that the independence rationale was a pretext.

I don't believe ishii is a racist. Kim, a Korean native, testified he's have to conscientiously distance himself from ishii - a Tokyo native and his former mentor - even as ishii was professionally pulling for him to succeed. For a tokyo native to vet for a Korean native is similar to a Jewish prof pullong for his Palestinian protegee to succeed, or a German Nazi pulling for a Jewish protegee. Something's not right about the plaintiff's case.

Ishii is definitely a racist. You seem to have missed the many witnesses who have testified that the man repeatedly characterized white men as "lazy and stupid."

And for a jury trial in Indiana, that will probably be enough

Shouldn’t it be?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Did you read the linked article? Kim testified independence is one of the most critical factors in a tenure process. It is not a criterion Purdue made up just for this woman.

+1. From the testimony so far, I think Ishii was way beyond the pale in terms of his racism and misogyny. But I don't think application of the independence criterion is evidence of it. That said, I would not be surprised if the plaintiff responded with evidence and/or argument that the independence rationale was a pretext.

I don't believe ishii is a racist. Kim, a Korean native, testified he's have to conscientiously distance himself from ishii - a Tokyo native and his former mentor - even as ishii was professionally pulling for him to succeed. For a tokyo native to vet for a Korean native is similar to a Jewish prof pullong for his Palestinian protegee to succeed, or a German Nazi pulling for a Jewish protegee. Something's not right about the plaintiff's case.

Ishii is definitely a racist. You seem to have missed the many witnesses who have testified that the man repeatedly characterized white men as "lazy and stupid."

And for a jury trial in Indiana, that will probably be enough

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Purdue engineering graduate, I would not encourage my kids to go there. The mailers I get from the university and Alumni organizations nowadays are all DEI. From what I've seen over the past few years, the quality of engineering education has greatly declined. The Purdue name still carries weight within the region and somewhat nationally, but likely not for much longer.

But how can a university claim to support DEI while tolerating faculty making blatant racist, sexist, and xenophobic statements for years? The things these witnesses let slide while faculty there does not seem very woke, unless there's an Asian exception to being racist etc.

Dude, do you even woke? It was racist against white people. So it's not racist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Did you read the linked article? Kim testified independence is one of the most critical factors in a tenure process. It is not a criterion Purdue made up just for this woman.

+1. From the testimony so far, I think Ishii was way beyond the pale in terms of his racism and misogyny. But I don't think application of the independence criterion is evidence of it. That said, I would not be surprised if the plaintiff responded with evidence and/or argument that the independence rationale was a pretext.

I don't believe ishii is a racist. Kim, a Korean native, testified he's have to conscientiously distance himself from ishii - a Tokyo native and his former mentor - even as ishii was professionally pulling for him to succeed. For a tokyo native to vet for a Korean native is similar to a Jewish prof pullong for his Palestinian protegee to succeed, or a German Nazi pulling for a Jewish protegee. Something's not right about the plaintiff's case.

Ishii is definitely a racist. You seem to have missed the many witnesses who have testified that the man repeatedly characterized white men as "lazy and stupid."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Did you read the linked article? Kim testified independence is one of the most critical factors in a tenure process. It is not a criterion Purdue made up just for this woman.

+1. From the testimony so far, I think Ishii was way beyond the pale in terms of his racism and misogyny. But I don't think application of the independence criterion is evidence of it. That said, I would not be surprised if the plaintiff responded with evidence and/or argument that the independence rationale was a pretext.

I don't believe ishii is a racist. Kim, a Korean native, testified he's have to conscientiously distance himself from ishii - a Tokyo native and his former mentor - even as ishii was professionally pulling for him to succeed. For a tokyo native to vet for a Korean native is similar to a Jewish prof pullong for his Palestinian protegee to succeed, or a German Nazi pulling for a Jewish protegee. Something's not right about the plaintiff's case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Did you read the linked article? Kim testified independence is one of the most critical factors in a tenure process. It is not a criterion Purdue made up just for this woman.

+1. From the testimony so far, I think Ishii was way beyond the pale in terms of his racism and misogyny. But I don't think application of the independence criterion is evidence of it. That said, I would not be surprised if the plaintiff responded with evidence and/or argument that the independence rationale was a pretext.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Did you read the linked article? Kim testified independence is one of the most critical factors in a tenure process. It is not a criterion Purdue made up just for this woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.

Saying a woman lacks independence (is needy) and is defiant (bossy) actually makes the case for claiming that guy was a misogynist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Article about Thursday at trial:
https://www.purdueexponent.org/campus/article_fef427c2-bbee-11ee-a3d6-dbeab64b84e6.html

The defense is arguing that the tenure committee was concerned about the Plaintiff's independence from her adviser. There also appear to have been some shenanigans related to trying to question the legitimacy of the Plaintiff's doctorate.

[Department Head] Kim raised the issue in an email, seeking [Vice Provost Hollenbeck's] advice on how to determine whether Sizyuk's doctoral degree was legitimate. Hollenbeck replied after some research that it was.

“We have learned nothing that the primary committee could not have learned themselves from a quick web search or a conversation with Tatyana," he added in an apparent chide. "If their goal was to wait it out and play 'gotcha' then we have a fire to put out. No?”

The linked article seems derogatory for the plaintiff's case. It shows Kim documented her independence, or lack there of, and her defiance.

It's entirely possible that she lacks qualities for a tenure at a T5 engineering school in the country - and ishii made derogatory statements against women in general. Tatyana needs to show that ishii was directing his derogatory statements specifically at her. Otherwise, it looks as if ishii is an early opponent DEI - the need to promote otherwise incompetent Tatyana for the sake of diversity.