Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 1

MEMORANDUM DECISION
TO:

Professor Susan Barrett, Complainant
Trey Barnett, Student, Respondent
Dr. Teresa Reed, Associate Dean for
The Henry Kendall College of Arts and Sciences
Dean Yolanda Taylor, Associate Vice President for
Enrollment and Student Services
Ginna Langston, Registrar

FROM:

Winona M. Tanaka, Senior Vice Provost

DATE:

October 24, 2014

RE:

DECISION IN BARRETT V. BARNETT HARASSMENT CASE
I. BACKGROUND

This case involves the following parties:
1. Professor Susan Barrett, Professor and Chair of the Theatre Department,
Complainant; and
2. Mr. Trey Barnett, a student (senior) majoring in Theatre, Respondent.
As Complainant, Professor Barrett seeks redress not only for herself but also for the
following additional victims of the alleged harassment:
•
•
•

Professor Kimberly Powers, Assistant Professor in the Theatre Department;
, a student (senior) majoring in Theatre and minoring in Musical
Theatre; and
Professor Machele Dill, Assistant Professor in the Theatre Department

On the morning of September 28, 2014, 1 the following posting was published on Mr.
Barnett's Facebook page:

I apologize in advance for calling
and Susan and Kim out on university of Tulsa
Confessions ... not apologizing to them but to you trey as I know they will take it out on
you. Susan really needs to take better control ofher students and teach them time
management and control her employees. I appreciate it when we have to cancel plans

1

This posting was brought to the attention of Professor Powers,
, Professor Barrett and
Professor Dill during the early morning hours of September 28, 2014. Thus, although Mr. Barnett's Response
suggests that the posting was actually published on the evening of September 27, 2014, this decision refers to
.
the postmg as made on September 28, 2104.

.

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (10:29am) Page 2
because students don 't show up on time. When they Don't show up on time it makes
everyone else run behind. In the real world this wont fly. TU really needs to fire Kim.
She is unqualified and plays favorites ... and needs to learn how to assign teams a little
bit better.
needs to lose weight and quit living in a fantasy world believing its okay
to be morbidly obese ... Both her ankles broke for a reason ... She's fat ... gastric bypass
will save her life ... and she needs to quit giving alcohol to underage minors. That is
all. I love you. 2
Professor Barrett, Professor Powers,
and Professor Dill ("Victims") learned of
this posting after receiving phone calls and emails from students, alumni, faculty and others
who had seen and read it on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page.
The Formal Complaint process was initiated on the afternoon ofMonday, September 29,
2014, when Professor Barrett, Professor Powers,
and Professor Dill met
(separately) with Senior Vice Provost (SVP) Winona Tanaka to present their complaints
against Mr. Barnett. The Victims requested that their case be handled under the Formal
Complaint procedures of the Harassment Policy.
On the morning of Tuesday, September 30, 2014, SVP Tanaka met with Mr. Barnett for
about one hour, beginning shortly after 8:20AM. SVP Tanaka addressed the following
matters during that meeting:
a. Notified Mr. Barnett that the Formal Complaint process had begun under the
Harassment Policy;
b. Summarized the allegations made against Mr. Barnett by Professor Barrett,
Professor Powers,
and Professor Dill;
c. Provided Mr. Barnett with a copy of the Harassment Policy and reviewed
specific provisions relevant to this case and to his rights and responsibilities
under the Policy;
d. Notified Mr. Barnett that the situation may also be actionable under the
Student Conduct Code and the Academic Misconduct Policy of the College of
Arts and Sciences, and explained that the Student Conduct Code is
administered by Dean Yolanda Taylor, Associate Vice President for
Enrollment and Student Services, and the Academic Misconduct Policy is
administered by Dr. Teresa Reed, Associate Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences;
e. Responded to questions raised by Mr. Barnett regarding the Harassment
Policy and procedures; and
f. Received Mr. Barnett's initial, verbal responses to the allegations, including
Mr. Barnett's acknowledgment that the September 28 posting was published
2

Text from all Facebook postings, Professor Barrett's October 3, 2014 Formal Complaint and Mr.
Barnett's October 13, 2014 Response are quoted verbatim. No notations are made for grammatical or other
•
errors .

..

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 3

on his Facebook page and Mr. Barnett's statement denying any responsibility
for that posting.
After Mr. Barnett confirmed that the September 28 posting was published on his Facebook
page and that earlier postings of a similar nature had been published on his Facebook page
in March and April, 2014, SVP Tanaka presented Mr. Barnett with a confidential letter
dated September 30, 2014. That letter provides specific instructions for Mr. Barnett during
the pendency of the case, including notification that he is expeoted to comply with the
prohibition against retaliation and the requirement of confidentiality under the Harassment
Policy.
On Friday, October 3, 2014, Professor Barrett delivered to the Provost's Office her written,
signed Formal Complaint, stating that she was acting on behalf of herself and Professor
and Professor Dill. Professor Barrett's Formal Complaint states that she
Powers,
was taking action under Section J of the Harassment Policy, which imposes on supervisors
"a legal obligation to act whenever they learn -directly or indirectly- about the occurrence of
Prohibited Harassment. "
The Provost's Office delivered a copy of the written Complaint to Mr. Barnett by email at
11:15 AM on October 3, 2014, within minutes after receiving that document from Professor
Barrett.
On Monday, October 13, 2014, Mr. Barnett delivered to the Provost's Office his written,
signed Response to Professor Barrett's Formal Complaint. On Tuesday, October 14, Mr.
Barnett met with SVP Tanaka, Dean Taylor and Associate Dean Reed. SVP Tanaka
explained that, pursuant to the Formal Complaint procedures, she was conducting the
investigation in this harassment case and would make a decision as soon as possible,
hopefully within a week. She invited Mr. Barnett to provide any additional information
regarding his Response, either in person during that meeting or in writing within 48 hours.
SVP Tanaka explained that she had asked Dean Taylor and Associate Dean Reed to attend
the meeting in order to answer any questions Mr. Barnett might have regarding policies and
procedures under the Student Conduct Code and the Academic Misconduct Policy of
College of Arts and Sciences, respectively. Mr. Barnett asked questions about specific
aspects of the Harassment policy, particularly procedures followed under the Formal
Complaint process.

•

B

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24, 2014 (I 0:29am) Page 4

IT. ISSUES AND FINDINGS
A. ISSUE A Is Mr. Barnett responsible, directly or indirectly, for the postings and
attacks made against Professor Powers,
and Professor Barrett on and
after September 28, 2014?
A-1.

The September 28, 2014 Posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook Page.

On September 27, 2014, Theatre faculty and students working on production of The Glass
Menagerie were called to work at the set in Kendall Hall. The show was scheduled to open
on Thursday, October 9. Mr. Barnett, as Lighting Designer, was among the students called
to the set that day. Late night and weekend "work calls" for Theatre Department
productions are not uncommon, particularly during the last two weeks before a show is
scheduled to open. At the September 27 work call, progress was delayed when a few
students failed to arrive on time. Everyone is expected to be on time, but delays due to
tardiness or last-minute problems are not unusual. Mr. Barnett is known to be very
punctual. Because of the delays, Mr. Barnett was late for dinner with Mr. Mangum that
evening. By the end of the day, members of the cast and crew had worked together and
finished the tasks at hand.
Some time later that evening or night, the following posting was published on Mr. Barnett's
Facebook page:

I apologize in advance for calling
and Susan and Kim out on university of Tulsa
Confessions ... not apologizing to them but to you trey as I know they will take it out on you.
Susan really needs to take better control ofher students and teach them time management and
control her employees. I appreciate it when we have to cancel plans because students don't show
up on time. When they Don't show up on time it makes everyone else run behind. In the real
world this wont fly. TU really needs to fire Kim. She is unqualified and plays favorites ... and
needs to learn how to assign teams a little bit better.
needs to lose weight and quite living
in a fantasy world believing its okay to ke morbidly obese ... Both her ankles broke for a reason
... She's fat ... gastric bypass will save her life ... and she needs to quit giving alcohol to
underage minors. That is all. I love you.
The readers of Mr. Barnett's Facebook page include students, faculty, alumni and others in
the University of Tulsa Theatre Department and Tulsa theatre community. These readers
quickly recognized the names of individuals targeted in this posting. Thus, during the early
morning hours of September 28, faculty, students and alumni contacted Professor Barrett,
about the posting. Apparently the same or a similar
Professor Powers and
posting had appeared initially on the social network site known as "TU Confessions," which
has a much broader audience. The accusations against Professor Barrett, Professor Powers
and
quickly became the subject of discussion and gossip among Theatre students,
faculty and alumni.

•

--IW--~13f~r---------~r

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 5
In his October 13 Response, Mr. Barnett claims that he had no involvement and bears no
responsibility whatsoever for the fact that (a) this posting was published on his Facebook
page; (b) this posting remained on his Facebook page for hours after Professor Barrett asked
him to "stop this latest attack;" and (c) this posting reached students, faculty, staff and others
in the Tulsa theatre community. Instead, Mr. Barnett argues that the only person
responsible for this posting should be Mr. Christopher Mangum, his fiance.
Mr. Barnett contends that the University of Tulsa should accept, at face value, the denials
made by him and the statements made by Mr. Mangum that Mr. Mangum acted alone and
is solely responsible for the September 28, 2014 posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page.
Mr. Mangum is not a student at the University of Tulsa and was not in attendance during
the September 27 call-in for The Glass Menagerie. Mr. Mangum claims that he wrote about
incidents based on his own, personal knowledge, obtained from sources other than Mr.
Barnett. Mr. Mangum also claims that he was not influenced in any way, directly or
indirectly, by Mr. Barnett. Mr. Mangum's claims are not credible.
In his Response, Mr. Barnett acknowledges that the September 28, 2014 posting was "crude
and insulting" and "not appropriate in any public forum." The Victims would regard this as a
gross understatement. The plain language of this posting shows that it was a defamatory
and demeaning effort to hold Professor Barrett, Professor Powers and
up to
disrespect and ridicule in their professional and personal lives:
a. The posting accuses Professor Barrett of failing to fulfill her responsibilities as
Theatre Department Chair and faculty advisor to The Glass Menagerie;
b. The posting accuses Professor Powers as being "unqualified" and states that
she should be "fired;"
c. The posting accuses
ofliving "in a fantasy world" and being
"morbidly obese;" and
d. The posting a~cuses
of "giving alcohol to underage minors," a crime
under the laws of the state of Oklahoma.
At the time of the September 28, 2014 posting, Mr. Barnett knew that the readers of his
Facebook page include students, faculty, alumni and other members of the Tulsa theatre
community. Mr. Barnett knew that the theatre community is small and that readers would
quickly recognize the individuals identified in the posting as "Susan" (Professor Barrett),
.
"Kim" (Professor Powers) and
After summarizing the complaints against him during their meeting on September 30, 2014,
SVP Tanaka expressed her opinion that the only reason for posting such attacks on his
Facebook page was to demean and humiliate the intended targets. SVP Tanaka distinctly
recalls Mr. Barnett's reaction- while she spoke, Mr. Barnett smiled and nodded his head
repeatedly, agreeing that those were indeed the reasons for posting the attacks against
Theatre faculty and students on his Facebook page. Mr. Barnett knew that this posting

B

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24, 2014 (I 0:29am) Page 6
would be read not only by the targeted individuals, but also by other faculty, students,
alumni and members of the Tulsa theatre community.
That purpose was achieved. As expected, Professor Powers and
were extremely
distraught to see their character, professional qualifications and personal lives attacked on
Mr. Barnett's Facebook page. Also, as expected, other Theatre students and faculty were
dragged into the situation. In her Formal Complaint, Professor Barrett describes the impact
of the September 28 posting as follows:

Morale and relationships in our Department have been harmed. These postings have damaged
reputations; undermined and disrupted the faculty's ability to offer academic programs and cocurricular activities. These attacks have disrupted other students as well as
' right to
participate without fear, in class, on productions, and in co-curricular activities in our Theatre
Department and for the College.
During the investigation, it was necessary to examine the context in which the September 28
posting was made. Specifically, it was necessary and appropriate to examine earlier postings
on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page that had included defamatory, demeaning attacks against
and Professor Dill.
Professor Powers,

A-2.

The March 15,2014 Postings on Mr. Barnett's Facebook Page.

In March, 2014, Mr. Barnett and a group of eight other Theatre students traveled to Ireland
under the leadership of Professor Machele Dill. The trip provided an opportunity for
University of Tulsa theatre students to participate in a production in Dublin.
was
in the group. Mr. Barnett was accompanied by Mr. Mangum.
While in Ireland, Mr. Barnett became upset about a request from Professor Dill that he and
other students contripute $100 Euros (each) towards the rental costs for the Theatre. Mr.
Balllett was also frustrated because he felt that, as set designer, his time and contributions
were not being properly planned and managed by Professor Dill. Mr. Barnett emailed
Professor Barrett, his faculty mentor and Theatre Department Chair, by email to express his
complaints and to seek resolution. While these matters were under review, postings were
published on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page under the name "Christopher Blackstone." In his
Response, Mr. Barnett acknowledges that "Christopher Blackstone" is psuedonym. Mr.
Barnett claims that all postings under that pseudonym were written and posted solely by Mr.
Mangum:

(March 15, 2014 Christopher Blackstone) Trey Barnett ... first I am sorry to you for not being
able to stay quiet ... But I think when there is an allegation ofcorruption and an affair TU
needs to investigate it. (Everyone knows about the affair and I'm glad TU has launched and
investigation and HR is involved) Secondly ... I Don't care what
says about me. I've
always been nice to her. She is simply miserable ... And deflects in an attempt to hide her own

•

--~--~1!~--------~r

..

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24, 2014 (I 0:29am) Page 7

insecurities. When all the fat comments I've heard others make towards her I was always the
one to tell them to sfu. Her loss. Not mine. I hope TU fires your corrupt professor.
(March 15, 2014 Christopher Blackstone) !just sent an email to the Tulsa US Attorneys office
asking them to open a formal investigation for possible criminal wrong doing. Racketeering
comes to mind. That is the statute they used to put the last guy in prison for 9 months. When I
saw how many people were being steered to one person in Ireland by one professor from TU it
set offtoo many alarms.
The plain language in these postings demonstrate an intent to demean, humiliate, bully and
intimidate Professor Dill and
:
a. The postings accuse Professor Dill, a married woman, of engaging in an
"affair" while in Ireland;
b. The postings accuse
of being "simply miserable" and
subject to ''fat comments;" and
c. The postings accuse Professor Dill of being a "corrupt professor" responsible for
"possible criminal wrongdoing" and "racketeering."
Mr. Barnett attempts to minimize the impact of the March 15 postings by stating that
Professor Dill was not named in those postings. However, as Mr. Barnett knows, the
Theatre community in Tulsa is small and its constituents are a relatively close-knit group.
Mr. Barnett knew that his Facebook page was being read by Theatre faculty, students,
alumni and other constituents who knew he was in Ireland and participating in a program
led by Professor Dill. Thus, by context, Professor Dill's identity was readily ascertainable by
readers of Mr. Barnett's Facebook page.

A-3.

The April12 Postings on Mr. Barnett's Facebook Page.

On Saturday, April12, 2014, scurrilous attacks against University of Tulsa faculty were
again published on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page. This time the target was Professor
Powers.
Earlier that day, Professor Powers had supervised a group ofTheatre students participating
in a community service project near the University of Tulsa campus. Professor Powers'
areas of expertise include scenic design and set design. This was a class project. Under
arrangements with the Kendall Whittier neighborhood association, the group painted a large
mural on the north side of the building that houses Ziegler's, a local business that provides
art supplies and services to the Theatre Department and other departments at the University
of Tulsa. The mural is designed to be seen from Interstate 244, welcoming visitors to Tulsa
and to the Kendall Whittier neighborhood. Local merchants agreed to reimburse the
Department for the cost of paint and other supplies. Students worked on the scaffolding
under the supervision of Professor Powers and a technical director from the University of
Tulsa's Lorton Performance Center, which provided the materials and offered specific •

----,.----tf
..

---------~·

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 8
expertise (through its technical director) for building the scaffolding. Upon completion,
community representatives thanked the Theatre group and presented Professor Powers with
a check to reimburse the Department for paint and supplies. Following University
procedures, Professor Powers submitted that check to College administrators the following
Monday.
Later that day, postings were published on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page, accusing Professor
Powers of being professionally and personally unqualified. As with the postings from
Ireland, these postings were made under the psuedonym, "Christopher Blackstone."

(Apn'l 12, 2014 Chn'stopher Blackstone) Trey Barnett I'd feel better about you painting and
hanging offthe side ofbuildings ifI knew that TU carried Workmens Camp for all these
projects they do ... who pays the bills ifyou get hurt on these freebie projects? I don't think your
teachers are qualified in the safety department and I don't think they have taken any safety
measures at all from the pictures I've seen .. They are quite careless and extremely disorganized.
Its extremely scary that you are trusting them with anything.
(Apri/12, 2014 Houston Hall) You realize that you can send personal messages to people. Lol.
(Apn'l12, 2014 Christopher Blackstone) Yeah but I Didnt Want that to be a personal message.
They are idiots.
The last posting on Aprill2, 2014 makes it clear that Mr. Barnett's Facebook page was used
intentionally as a public platform for reaching members of the Tulsa theatre community.
"Christopher Blackstone" wanted the message to be read by students, faculty, alumni and
others, and wanted readers to know that the writer(s) consider Professor Powers and other
"teachers" to be "idiots." This publication was intended for an audience that knows Professor
powers, the intended target, and could readily ascertain her identity through context.
A-4.

The Warnings Given to Mr. Barnett By Professor Barrett

Evidence received during the investigation showed that, after the March 15, 2014 postings
on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page,
that attacked and demeaned Professor Dill and
Professor Barrett contacted Mr. Barnett and warned him to take the postings down and
cease the "derogatory public attacks." After the Apri112, 2014 postings that attacked and
demeaned Professor Powers, Professor Barrett contacted Mr. Barnett and again warned him
to take the postings down and cease the attacks. In her Formal Complaint, Professor Barrett
describes her warnings to Mr. Barnett as follows:

I spoke with Trey by phone as soon as I was aware ofthe attacks from Ireland urging him to
take the postings down and in person again when he returned to Tulsa from Ireland. In both
instances, I warned him that these kinds ofderogatory public attacks must cease. I spoke with
Trey, following the Kendal Whittier posting urging him to take down it down and again
warned him to cease all forms ofthis activity.
•

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24, 2014 (10:29am) Page 9

In his Response and during the investigation, Mr. Barnett did not deny that he received
warnings from Professor Barrett after the March 15 and April12 postings on his Facebook
page. Instead, he points to his repeated claims that he should not be held responsible for
anything, and that Mr. Mangum alone bears responsibility for all postings:

I was clear with Professor Barrett from the beginning that I was not directly or indirectly
involved with any postings, which she understood.
In his Response, Mr. Barnett attempts to suggest that he did not receive Professor Barrett's
warnings, but those denials lack credibility. Mr. Barnett uses guarded language to offer
denials that are limited and meaningless:

I did not have a working phone while in Ireland.
I never had a meeting with Professor Barrett about what happened in Ireland.
Despite such protestations, Mr. Barnett does not deny that he received warnings from
Professor Barrett while he was in Ireland, that he was warned again after he returned from
Ireland, and that he received forther warnings after the April12 postings against Professor
Powers. During the investigation, Professor Barrett stated that she clearly recalled
communicating with Mr. Barnett while he was in Ireland, but acknowledged that her
communications with him might have been through email, not telephone. Professor Barrett
stated that, after learning of the March 15, 2014 postings on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page,
she used emails, text messages and telephone calls to contact various individuals, trying to
get Mr. Barnett to remove the derogatory postings and cease the attacks against Professor
Dill. By whatever medium, Professor Barrett firmly recalled contacting Mr. Barnett while
he was in Ireland and asking him to cease the attacks against Professor Dill on his Facebook
page.
Mr. Barnett acknowledges that he was aware of the March 15 postings on his Facebook
page and he received the warnings from Professor Barrett. However he states that the
March 15 postings were not removed from his Facebook page until after Mr. Mangum was
satisfied:

Chn"s had taken down all the posts while we were still in Ireland because the school was starting
an investigation about the trip.
After the March and April postings, Professor Barrett decided to give Mr. Barnett the benefit
of the doubt. She accepted his claims that Mr. Mangum, and Mr. Mangum alone, was
responsible for the March 15, 2014 and April12, 2014 postings on Mr. Barnett's Facebook
page. Professor Barrett assumed and hoped that the matter was resolved with her warnings
and admonishments to Mr. Barnett.
On the morning of September 28, after seeing the latest postings against Professor Powers
and
, Professor Barrett spoke with Mr. Barnett initially by telephone and lat6l in

..

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 10
person. She urged him to "stop this latest attack" against Professor Powers and
.
Subsequently the Victims were dismayed to see that, although the initial posting on "TU
Confessions" were removed, the same attacks were published and allowed to remain on Mr.
Barnett's Facebook page long after Mr. Barnett received the latest warnings from Professor
Barrett.
A-5.

Mr. Barnett's Failure to Act and Failure to Heed The Warnings
Given to H~ by Professor Barrett

The recent spate of attacks against Professor Powers and
show that Mr. Barnett
failed to avail himself of the opportunity given to him by Professor Barrett last spring.
Instead of accepting the warnings and taking appropriate action, Mr. Barnett did nothing.
He had successfully used what Professor Barrett now characterizes as the "Chris did it"
defense to avoid consequences after the March 15 and Aprill2 postings. Apparently Mr.
Barnett expected to rely on the same defense to avoid responsibility for the September 28
posting. In her Formal Complaint, Professor Barrett reflects on the situation as follows:

Looking back, I guess he [Mr. Barnett} never really took my warnings seriously.
Trey seems to think that, as along as he can claim, "Chris did it, " he can hide behind Chris
and avoid responsibility for these attacks on our faculty and students.
After being warned repeatedly by Professor Barrett to stop the attacks against University of
Tulsa faculty and students, Mr. Barnett was on notice and became responsible for paying
heed to Professor Barrett's warnings. Mr. Barnett became responsible for taking reasonable
steps to prevent further attacks against University of Tulsa faculty and students on his
Facebook page.
Yet, in Mr. Barnett's Response and during this investigation, no evidence emerged to show
that Mr. Barnett made any effort to heed Professor Barrett's warnings and fulfill his
responsibilities after being warned last March and April. In fact, Mr. Barnett's Response is
strikingly void of any indication that he did anything last spring or last summer to prevent
further derogatory, inappropriate attacks against Theatre faculty and students on his
Facebook page. For five months, Mr. Barnett did nothing. He acted only in early October,
after commencement of this harassment case.
If, as Mr. Barnett claimed last spring, all defamatory, demeaning attacks against University
of Tulsa faculty and students last March and April had been made solely by Mr. Mangum,
Mr. Barnett could have taken action to block further postings by Mr. Mangum. Mr. Barnett
could have password-protected his Facebook page. Mr. Barnett could have spoken with Mr.
Mangum, his fiance, and asked him to cease these attacks against University of Tulsa faculty
and students. Mr. Barnett reveals in his Response that- had he made even an effort after the
March and April postings- he could have influenced Mr. Mangum's subsequent conduct
and choices:

..

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 11

I have explained to Chris (Mr. Mangum) how these statements are harmful to others and how
they are harmful to me. After discussions about the comments, Chris has taken all previous
comments down. Chris has assured me that he will not make any more posts, or other
comments, about TU or people related to TU
Unfortunately, Mr. Barnett did not take steps and did not make the necessary efforts until
after he learned that the Victims were seeking redress against him under the Harassment
Policy. He had been warned repeatedly, but he did nothing for five months. Mr. Barnett
acted only after realizing that the demeaning, defamatory attacks on his Facebook page were
harmful not only to "others," but also "harmful to me. "
The record shows that Mr. Barnett has not claimed at any time that he lacked control to
block, stop or take down from his Facebook page the attacks against the Victims. In fact,
Mr. Barnett denied control only once in his Response and during the investigation, when
referring to the posting on the KTUL website:

I had informed [Professor Barrett] that neither Chris nor I had any involvement with the post.
I had no control over taking the KTUL post down as I did not post it and Chris has denied
posting it. (Emphasis added)
In this context, it is reasonable and unavoidable to infer that Mr. Barnett has known all
along that he has the ability to control postings on his Facebook page, particularly postings
made by Mr. Mangum- if indeed Mr. Mangum alone wrote the defamatory, bullying
attacks against the Victims. The attacks were posted and allowed to remain on Mr.
Barnett's Facebook page last March, April and September not by happenstance, but by
choice.
Moreover, although Mr. Barnett repeatedly claims he "was not involved" and "was not the one
who posted the comments," he has never suggested that he lacked interest or that he had no
reason to have the attacks posted on his Facebook page. Credible evidence obtained during
the investigation showed that, prior to each attack against the Victims, Mr. Barnett had
expressed dissatisfaction with relationships and matters were addressed in each attack. In
addition to the circumstances described previously in Sections A-1, A-2 and A-3 of this
Memorandum Decision, credible evidence was received to show the following:
•

Prior to the trip to Ireland, Mr. Barnett became "disgruntled" after he learned
that his application to the Musical Theatre program had been denied. All
applications to the Musical Theatre program are reviewed by a faculty
committee, not by Professor Dill single-handedly. However, Professor Dill
directs the Musical Theatre program. She observed a change in Mr. Barnett's
behavior towards her after he was denied admission to the Musical Theatre
program.

..

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (10:29am) Page 12

•

and Mr. Barnett had been close friends at one time but, during the
past year, their relationship became strained. The rift worsened while they
were in Ireland, after
encouraged Mr. Barnett to remain on the set
with other theatre students despite Mr. Mangum's desire to go elsewhere.
After learning what
had said, Mr. Mangum reacted angrily and
called her a "bitch."

•

During the Properties Management class taught by Professor Powers this fall,
Professor Powers observed noticeable tensions between Mr. Barnett and the
three other students in the class. Professor Powers took steps to make sure
that those tensions did not affect any class activities, but noticed that Mr.
Barnett sought validation from her "on every bit ofhis work" in the class.

Prior to the commencement of the Formal Complaint against him, Mr. Barnett knew that
the postings on his Facebook page had been harmful to the reputations and well-being of the
Victims. Apparently Mr. Barnett did not realize, until after commencement of this
investigation, that those same postings could also be "harmfUl to me." Apparently the harm
suffered by Professor Dill, Professor Powers,
and Professor Barrett had not been
enough to motivate Mr. Barnett to act. Mr. Barnett finally acted and took corrective action
in early October- but only after realizing that, with the commencement of the harassment
case against him, the cyber attacks on his Facebook page had become potentially "harmfUl to
me."

In this context, Mr. Barnett's repeated, self-serving denials of any responsibility and
involvement ring hollow and lack credibility.

FINDING ON ISSUE A Mr. Barnett bears responsibility for the September 28,
2014 posting on his Facebook page. He received adequate, repeated warnings to
cease the attacks. Mr. Barnett's self-serving denials of involvement and
responsibility lack credibility. He is responsible for his actions and inactions that
led to the September 28,2014 attacks on his Facebook page against Professor
Powers,
and Professor Barrett.
B. ISSUE B Did the Provost's Office err in suspending Mr. Barnett from two
theatre classes and one theatre practicum, and removing him from his position as
Lighting Director of The Glass Menagerie, before receipt of the written Complaint
and during the pendency of this case?
A Formal Complaint under the University of Tulsa's Harassment Policy is initiated when
one or more parties present allegations of prohibited harassment to an appropriate
University official and express their intent to proceed under the procedures for Formal
Complaints. The process begins as soon as the complaint is received, even though a written
Complaint is required and may not be presented by the parties until later. To date, all
Formal Complaint cases handled by the Provost's Office have been initiated with complaints

'B
'

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 13
presented orally (in person) or in writing (letter or email). Written complaints are not
received until later. In situations where the status quo appears stable and there does not
appear to be a reasonable basis for fearing continued harassment, the Provost's Office does
not notify the accused until after a written complaint is received. However, in cases where
there is reasonable basis for concern about ongoing harassment and vulnerability of the
Victim(s), the accused is notified as soon as possible, typically before the written complaint
is received.
'

From the outset, this case presented a reasonable basis for concern regarding ongoing
harassment and vulnerability of the Victims. The language and tone of the September 28,
2014 posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page was hostile, aggressive, bullying and
defamatory. Moreover, this was not the first time that Mr. Barnett's Facebook page had
been used to launch defamatory, demeaning attacks against faculty and students in the
Theatre program. Similar derogatory and demeaning attacks had been published on Mr.
Barnett's Facebook page last March and April. The September 28, 2014 attack against
Professor Powers was posted on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page five months after he had
received clear warnings and admonitions from Professor Barrett to cease the attacks. These
circumstances were enough to raise serious doubts about Mr. Barnett's willingness to
conform his conduct to the standards of the University of Tulsa community, as described in
the opening paragraphs of the Harassment Policy:

The University of Tulsa is committed to fostering a civil campus community.

*****
Indeed, the University expects ofall such participants that they will treat each other respectfUlly
and refrain from any inappropriate conduct, especially conduct that rises to the level ofbeing
prohibited under this policy. Such conduct is unacceptable behavior and will not be tolerated.
The purpose ofthis policy is to protect participants from conduct which is unsolicited,
unwelcome and inappropriate, in any form and by any means.
At the time this case was initiated, defamatory, demeaning attacks had been posted on Mr.
Barnett's Facebook page on three separate occasions: March 15, 2014; April12, 2014 and
September 28, 2014. Mr. Barnett has never denied that these postings were made on his
Facebook page.
During individual meetings with the Provost's Office on September 29, 2014, Professor
Powers,
, Professor Barrett and Professor Dill expressed great distress,
intimidation and dread at the mere thought of working alongside Mr. Barnett in Theatre
classes and on the set of The Glass Menagerie. Therefore, the following enrollment and cocurricular issues had to be addressed by the Provost's Office at the outset and during the
pendency of this case:
1. Mr. Barnett is enrolled in Theatre 3142 (Properties Management), taught by
Professor Powers. Only four students are enrolled, including
and Mr.
•
Barnett. It is an upper level class with a pedagogy that requires continuous

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 14

2.

3.

4.

5.

interaction among faculty and students. Prior to the September 28 attacks against
her, Professor Powers had already been distressed, threatened and humiliated by
the Aprill2, 2014 attacks against her on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page. She was
left feeling vulnerable.
was feeling similar vulnerability because of the
March 15, 2014 attacks against her during the trip to Ireland. Both Professor
Powers and
were deeply distressed and concerned that the attacks
against them would continue and escalate during the pendency of the case.
Mr. Barnett is enrolled in Theatre 4973 (Collaborative Processes), an upper level
course co-taught by Professor Barrett and Professor Dill. There are 13 students in
the class, including
. The class requires continuous faculty and student
interaction, including class exercises where students are required to work in small
groups. The March 15, 2014 attacks against Professor Dill had affected her
personally and professionally. She felt unwanted pressure and vulnerability from
the threat of ongoing harassment. Professor Barrett and Professor Dill were both
deeply concerned about the impact of having Mr. Barnett in their Theatre 4973
class, especially with
in the same group.
On September 28, The Glass Menagerie was less than two weeks away from
opening. The entire cast and crew were already anxious, and their anxieties
were heightened by the September 28 posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook
page.
was the Stage Manager, Mr. Barnett was the Lighting
Designer, and Professor Powers was a faculty advisor. None of the Victims
believed that it would be feasible to work with Mr. Barnett in such close
proximity and under the pressure felt by all participants.
Mr. Barnett is enrolled in Theatre 1220 (Practicum), supervised by Professor
Barrett. The practicum is based heavily on Mr. Barnett's performance as
Lighting Designer for The Glass Menagerie. Professor Barrett reported that, if
Mr. Barnett were suspended or removed from the position of Lighting
Designer, the crew would have to hire or assign another person to handle
those responsibilities for the remaining period. A temporary replacement was
not possible at that point in the production schedule.
Professor Powers,
, Professor Barrett and Professor Dill all
expressed great concern about their security in Kendall Hall. They were all
concerned about retaliation and continued harassment after the filing of the
Formal Complaint. The building itself is odd because of its circular design.
The shape does not allow a clear line of sight from one direction to another,
and there are odd "niches" and doorways throughout. It is not uncommon for
Theatre students, faculty and staff to study and work in the building late at
night- sometimes until midnight or later - in order to use the stage,
carpenter's shop and other areas needed for specific purposes. At times only a
handful of individuals remain in the building at night. The Victims feared
reprisals and continuing harassment, and did not feel secure in Kendall Hall
after the complaint was filed against Mr. Barnett.

"

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (!0:29am) Page 15
The concerns and fears of the Victims were reasonably based on actual circumstances in this
case. When there is a fear of continued harassment or retaliation, Section C(l)(c) of the
Harassment Policy requires administrators and supervisors to act:
Administrators and supervisors have the legal responsibility to protect a complainant or victim
from continued Prohibited Harassment or retaliation ...
For these reasons, the Provost's Office imposed interim restrictions on Mr. Barnett during
the pendency of this case:
1. Suspension ofMr. Barnett's enrollment in Theatre 3142 (Properties
Management);
2. Suspension ofMr. Barnett's enrollment in Theatre 4973 (Collaborative
Processes);
3. Suspension ofMr. Barnett's enrollment in Theatre 1220 (Practicum);
4. Removal of Mr. Barnett from the position of Lighting Designer for The Glass
Menagerie;
5. Limited access of Mr. Barnett to Kendall Hall, allowing him to be in the
building for voice lessons but at no other times without prior written approval
from Professor Barrett;
6. No further communications or contacts with Professor Powers and Ms.
, who were the primary targets of the September 28 posting.

FINDING ON ISSUE B The Provost's Office was justified in concluding that
interim protective measures were required to protect Professor Powers, Ms.
and Professor Barrett from continued harassment and threats to their
persons and reputations during the pendency of this case. The restrictions placed
on Mr. Barnett in SVP Tanaka's September 30, 2014letter were necessary,
appropriate and authorized under Section C(l)(c) of the Harassment Policy.
C. ISSUE C Did the September 28, 2014 posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page
violate the Victims' rights under Section A(3) of the Harassment Policy?

Section A{3) of the Harassment Policy prohibits inappropriate conduct that is harmful to an
individual's "person or reputation on or offcampus:"
Section A(3). Reputation- Prohibited Harassment related to an individual's reputation may
include any form ofinappropriate conduct which is defamatory, demeaning, intimidating,
threatening, or otherwise places an individual in fear ofharm to his or her person or reputation
on or offcampus.
The September 28 posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page included several demeaning,
defamatory attacks against the persons and reputations of the Victims:

..

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24, 2014 (I 0:29am) Page 16
1. Accusing Professor Barrett of failing to fulfill her responsibilities as Theatre
Department Chair and a faculty supervisor for The Glass Menagerie;
2. Accusing Professor Powers of being "unqualified" and stating that she should
be ''fired;"
3. Accusing
of living "in a fantasy world" and being "morbidly obese;"
and
4. Accusing
of "giving alcohol to underage minors," a criminal act in the
State of Oklahoma.
These accusations are defamatory, demeaning, intimidating and threatening to the persons
and reputations of Professor Barrett, Professor Powers and
. In his Response,
Mr. Barnett acknowledges that these accusations are "crude and insulting ... and were not
appropriate in any public forum. "
Evidence was received during the investigation that clearly demonstrated the significant
harm suffered by the Victims. All Victims described how their morale and sense of wellbeing in their personal and professional lives have been disrupted and damaged. The
accusations were read by Theatre students, faculty and alumni. Some readers have
contacted one or more of the Victims to express their concern and inquire about the
accusations. In effect, each of the Victims has been smeared by the defamatory, demeaning
and bullying accusations published against them on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page.
Relationships between the Victims and others, on and off campus, have been adversely
affected. The Victims related how students, faculty and other members of the Tulsa theatre
community have appeared uncertain about how to interact with them. Many members of
the Theatre community seem to sense a cloud of uncertainty created by the aggressive,
defamatory and demeaning attacks that were published on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page.
' personal life, personal sense of well-being and ability to interact freely with
classmates have been disrupted. Professor Powers, Professor Dill and Professor Barrett
report that faculty-student relationships in their classes and co-curricular activities have been
adversely affected. Clearly the attacks published on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page have
undermined the reputations and persons of the Victims, and have harmed many aspects of
relationships and programs in the Theatre Department.
FINDING ON ISSUE C Section A(3) of the Harassment Policy was violated by
the defamatory, demeaning, intimidating and threatening posting on Mr.
Barnett's Facebook page that attacked the reputations and persons of Professor
Powers,
and Professor Barrett on September 28, 2014. Significant
harm has been suffered by the Victims personally and professionally, on and off
campus.

.

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 17
D. ISSUED Did the September 28, 2014 posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page
violate the Victims' rights under Section B(1)(c) of the Harassment Policy?
Section B(1)(c) of the Harassment Policy prohibits inappropriate conduct that unreasonably
interferes with the academic or working environment:
Prohibited Harassment includes any conduct or behavior ofan inappropriate nature where:

*****

'

c. Such conduct has the purpose or effect ofunreasonably inteifering with an individual's
academic or work performance or ofcreating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working,
educational or campus living environment.

As discussed earlier under ISSUES Band C, evidence received during the investigation
clearly showed that the September 28, 2014 posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page has
significantly disrupted and damaged the Victims' personal well-being, their professional
standing, their ability to interact freely in classrooms and during co-curricular activities, their
morale, and their relationships with other faculty and students in the Theatre Department.
Mr. Barnett knew, at the time of the posting, that the September 28 attacks against Professor
and Professor Barrett would be read by and become the subject of
Powers,
discussion among faculty, students, alumni and others involved in the University of Tulsa
Theatre community. By attacking and demeaning the professional qualifications and
abilities of Professor Powers and Professor Barrett, and by attacking and demeaning Ms.
personally and in her life as a student at the University of Tulsa, the September 28
posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page unreasonably interfered with the Victims' personal
and professional lives and their ability to participate freely and without fear in academic and
co-curricular activities. The evidence clearly showed that the September 28, 2014 posting on
Mr. Barnett's Facebook page has had the effect of" creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive
working, educational or campus living environment" for the Victims, individually and as a group.
FINDING ON ISSUED Section (B)(1)(c) of the Harassment Policy was violated
by the September 28, 2014 posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page. This posting
has had the effect of unreasonably and significantly interfering with the personal
and professional lives of the Victims, and their ability to participate freely and
fully in academic, co-curricular and other activities at the University of Tulsa. In
addition, the posting has affected other faculty and students in their
relationships with the Victims and in their academic and working environments.
Such a broad impact was inevitable because, as Mr. Barnett knew, his Facebook
page would be read by many students, faculty, alumni a.nd others, on and off
campus.

.

'B
'

 •

Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 18

E. ISSUE E Did Mr. Barnett violate Section C(l)(a) and Section E of the
Harassment Policy?
Section C(1)(a) of the Harassment Policy prohibits any reprisals or retaliatory conduct
against victims:

a. Against the Victim. It is a violation ofthe Policy on Harassment to retaliate against a
complainant for filing a charge ofProhibited Harassment. A complaint ofretaliation will be
pursued using the steps followed for a complaint ofProhibited Harassment.
Section E of the Harassment Policy requires that every effort be made to assure
confidentiality and to protect against breach of confidentiality:

•

Throughout the complaint and investigation process, every effort will be made to assure and
provide confidentiality to the fUllest extent reasonably possible to protect against retaliation.
Subject to applicable law, communication will be limited to a minimum "need to know" basis,
coupled with a directive not to discuss the matter outside the process. However, the
investigation ofsuch complaints will generally require disclosure to the accused party and other
witnesses in order to gather pertinent facts .
During their meeting on September 30, 2014, Mr. Barnett was notified and admonished by
SVP Tanaka to comply with the mandates of Sections C(1)(a) and E. He received
instructions orally and in writing. SVP Tanaka's September 30, 2014letter to Mr. Barnett,
delivered to him at that meeting, includes the following instructions:

7. You are to respect the requirement ofconfidentiality and the prohibition against reprisals or
retaliation, as specifically stated in the Harassment Policy. Any allegations regarding breach of
confidentiality or retaliatory conduct will be lnvestigated as potential additional violations
under the Harassment Policy.

*****
9. Effective immedlately, you should be mindfUl to avoid any conduct that may violate one or
more provisions ofthe Harassment Policy. Please be aware that the investigation ofthe
Provost's Office wlll not be limlted to conduct that occurred prior to today, but wlll be
contlnuing in nature.
10. Ifyou have any questions regardlng the nature and scope ofthese instructions, please
present your questions to me by email. I will respond as quickly as possible.
Despite these instructions, Mr. Barnett shared the confidential September 30, 2014letter and
the confidential October 3, 2014 (written) Formal Complaint with Mr. Mangum.

•

The record shows that Mr. Mangum received a copy ofSVP Tanaka's September 30, 2014
letter almost immediately after it had been given to Mr. Barnett. The letter had been
delivered in person to Mr. Barnett before he left the Provost's Office, close to 9:30 AM.on

 Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 19
September 30. At 6:14PM that afternoon, Mr. Mangum emailed SVP Tanaka to say that he
had prepared an affidavit and would be sending it to the Provost's Office, responding to the
contents of the (confidential) September 30, 2014letter. Mr. Mangum's Affidavit, dated and
signed on October 1, 2014, includes his claim that he was solely responsible for postings on
Mr. Barnett's Facebook page. That affidavit also includes additional disparaging
accusations -beyond those in the September 28 Facebook posting- against Professor
Powers and
.
Similar sharing of the Formal Complaint became evident within hours after Professor
Barrett's Formal Complaint was delivered by email to Mr. Barnett at 11:15 AM on October
3, 2014. At 4:33PM that afternoon, Mr. Mangum emailed SVP Tanaka with an attached
"additional affidavit in regards to the official compliant (sic) submitted by Susan Barrett." That
affidavit includes additional, defamatory accusations -beyond those in the September 28,
2014 facebook posting- against Professor Barrett, who wrote and signed the Formal
Complaint.
Under Section E of the Harassment Policy, Mr. Mangum is not an appropriate person with
whom these confidential documents could be shared by Mr. Barnett. Further, if Mr. Barnett
believed his own statements in his Response, he knew that Mr. Mangum could not be
trusted to act reasonably, responsibly or civilly:

[Chris} is very defensive and protective ofme. Chris takes medication for Rapid BiPolar Depression, which makes him speak his mind.

Mr. Barnett knew or had reason to know that Mr. Mangum could not be trusted to respect
the requirements of the Harassment Policy and the expectations of the Victims that their
harassment case would be handled discreetly and without inappropriate publicity. The
Victims were entitled to be protected against further publication of the defamatory,
demeaning accusations that had appeared previously on Mr. Barnett's Facebook page.
After Mr. Barnett received Professor Barrett's Formal Complaint, attacks against Professor
Barrett escalated with the following October 5, 2014 posting on Mr. Barnett's Facebook
page:

Just sent an email to the ACLU on Trey's behalfaskingfor their help against
The University of Tulsa for censorship andfree speech violations. We're
gearing up to go to war with TU Susan Barrett will regret lying when we get
to go face to face with her in court. Susan, you shouldn't have lied or forged
documents!
This October 5 posting includes precisely the type of retaliatory, defamatory language and
inappropriate threats that had given rise to the Formal Complaint in the first place. The
timing of this publication makes it reasonable to infer that it was published in response to the
fact that Professor Barrett had signed the Formal Complaint and the University ofTuls11 was

-~---·ttl!!!!!!!!l!lll------r----

 •

Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 20
pursuing these matters under the Harassment Policy. The threat against Professor Barrett to
cause her to "regret lying" is an unsubtle reference to the written Formal Complaint she had
signed just two days earlier, on October 3, 2014. The threats against both Professor Barrett
and the University of Tulsa are acts of retaliation against the Professor Barrett
(Complainant) and the University for pursuing redress for the Victims under the Harassment
Policy:
a. The October 5 posting threatens to "go to war with TU' ""ith accusations of
"censorship and free speech violations;"
b. The October 5 posting accuses Professor Barrett ofhaving "lied" and ''forged
documents;" and
c. The October 5 posting threatens to "go face to face with [Professor Barrett] in court" to
make her "regret lying."

•

The October 5 posting was retaliatory and bullying. Mr. Barnett gave Professor Barrett's
Formal Complaint to Mr. Mangum. Mr. Barnett participated in and allowed publication of
the retaliatory, defamatory, threatening attacks against Professor Barrett on his Facebook
page on October 5, after being admonished verbally and in writing by SVP Tanaka against
such action. The October 5 posting was made despite the fact that, on September 30, Mr.
Barnett was notified verbally and in writing that he must refrain from engaging in retaliatory
conduct and "be mindful to avoid any conduct that may violate one or more provisions ofthe
Harassment Policy."
Despite warnings and admonitions given to him just days before, Mr. Barnett again failed to
act reasonably and appropriately. He failed to comply with the requirements of the
Harassment Policy and the standards of conduct required of all members of the University of
Tulsa community. After being warned to cease and desist, Mr. Barnett's Facebook page
became, yet again, a public forum for defamatory, threatening attacks- this time against
Professor Barrett, the only individual who signed the Formal Complaint. Mr. Barnett's
Facebook page was used, yet again, to make sure that these accusations and threats would
be read by students, faculty, alumni and other members of the Tulsa theatre community.

FINDING ON ISSUE E Section C(1)(a) and Section E of the Harassment Policy
were violated when Mr. Barnett shared the confidential September 30,2014
letter and October 3, 2014 Formal Complaint with Mr. Mangum. Following
Mr. Barnett's receipt of the Formal Complaint, the attacks on Mr. Barnett's
Facebook page escalated, focusing solely on Professor Barrett, who had signed
the Formal Complaint. Mr. Barnett's actions violated the mandate against
retaliation in Section C(1)(a) and the requirement of confidentiality in Section E
of the Harassment Policy .

•

 •

Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24, 2014 (I 0:29am) Page 21
ill. CONCLUSION

Evidence received during the investigation clearly supported Professor Barrett's assessment
that Mr. Barnett never took her warnings seriously after the March 15, 2014 and Aprill2,
2014 attacks against Theatre faculty and students on his Facebook page. Mr. Barnett failed
to fulfill his responsibilities. Instead, he squandered the opportunity given to him last spring
when Professor Barrett gave him the benefit of the doubt and considered the matter resolved
with her warnings and admonitions. When given the chance, ]\1r. Barnett failed to act
reasonably and appropriately. He demonstrated no concern for the harm already suffered by
Professor Dill, Professor Powers and
after the March and April postings on his
Facebook page. The record shows that Mr. Barnett took action only after learning that the
Victims had contacted the Provost's Office to file formal complaints against him under the
Harassment Policy. In describing his decision to finally act after September 28, Mr. Barnett
reveals in his Response that he became motivated only after realizing that, in addition to
harming others, the scurrilous postings on his Facebook page "are harmful to me."

•

Mr. Barnett violated several provisions in the Harassment Policy: Section A-3 (damaging the
Victims' reputations and persons on and off campus); Section B(l)(c) (unreasonably
interfering with the Victims' academic and work performance and creating an intimidating,
hostile and offensive working and educational environment); Section C(l)(a) (retaliation
against the Complainant in a harassment case); and Section E (breach of confidentiality).
Mr. Barnett has never acknowledged any responsibility for cyber attacks against the Victims
on his Facebook page. Mr. Barnett has failed to provide any credible explanation regarding
his claim that all postings on his Facebook page were made solely by Mr. Mangum, without
any involvement on his part. After being notified by Professor Barrett on the morning of
September 28 that the Victims planned to filed complaints against him with the Provost's
Office, Mr. Barnett sent emails to Professor Powers,
and Professor Barrett. His
messages offered no apologies for any of his actions or inactions. Instead, Mr. Barnett used
those communications as yet another opportunity to distance himself from the postings on
his Facebook page- asserting, once again, what Professor Barrett now refers to as Mr.
Barnett's "Chris did it" defense.
In his Response, Mr. Barnett lists a variety of contributions he has made to the Theatre
program as a student, as a volunteer and as a participant in co-curricular activities.
However, like his half-hearted email excuses to the Victims on September 28, Mr. Barnett's
list of contributions is not enough to offset his failure to accept and perform his
responsibilities as a member of the Theatre Department community.

•

The Issues investigated and the Findings reached in this case clearly and consistently show
that Mr. Barnett is responsible and must be held accountable for the derogatory, demeaning
attacks posted on his Facebook page on September 28, 2014 and on October 5, 2014. The
impact of the September 28, 2014 and October 5, 2014 postings has been significant.
and Professor Barrett have suffered significant harm not qply
Professor Powers,

 '

.

•

Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 22
because of the September 28 and October 5 attacks, but also because those attacks arrived on
the heels of earlier defamatory attacks that had threatened and undermined their personal
and professional lives and well-being. The effect has been cumulative and has been felt not
only the targeted Victims. These attacks have undermined the morale and unreasonably
interfered with the academic and working environment of many faculty, students, alumni
and other members of the Tulsa theatre community. Professor Powers,
and
Professor Barrett and the Theatre Department are entitled to immediate relief and protection
against Mr. Barnett's defamatory, demeaning, bullying attacks.,

IV. SANCTIONS
Based on the Findings and Conclusions in this case, the following sanctions are imposed
against Mr. Barnett, effective immediately:
1. Mr. Barnett is suspended from the University ofTulsa until January 1, 2016 or
until
graduates, whichever is later.

•

2. During his suspension, Mr. Barnett will be barred from the University of
Tulsa campus and will not be allowed to enter the campus without prior,
written permission from the Dean or Associate Dean of the College of Arts
and Sciences. Failure to abide by this directive will subject Mr. Barnett to
immediate removal, possible arrest for trespassing, and further consequences
for violation of sanctions imposed in this case.
3. Following the expiration of his suspension, Mr. Barnett may return to the
University of Tulsa campus and may enroll in classes, but he will not be
allowed to enroll in any classes offered by the Theatre Department or Theatre
faculty. In making arrangements for his return, Mr. Barnett will be subject to
all policies and procedures applicable to returning students in his situation.
4. An entry will be made on Mr. Barnett's transcript reflecting the results of this
decision: SUSPENDED I DISCIPLINARY PROBATIONMISCONDUCT.
5. If Mr. Barnett graduates from the University of Tulsa, he will not be granted a
degree with a major or minor in Theatre.

•

6. Mr. Barnett may petition the Associate Dean of the College of Arts and
Sciences, if he wishes to request waiver of the 45-hour rule in order to take
courses at another institution during his period of probation. However, no
Theatre courses will be transferrable to the University of Tulsa. The decision
of the Associate Dean will be subject to review and appeal only by the Dean
of the College, with a final appeal to the Provost's Office.

 •

Barrett v Barnett Final Decision
October 24,2014 (I 0:29am) Page 23

7. Mr. Barnett will be on Disciplinary Probation during his period of suspension
and until graduation.
8. Any further violation of the Harassment Policy, and any violation of the terms
of this Decision, academic misconduct policies and/ or student conduct
policies will be grounds for immediate, permanent dismissal from the
University of Tulsa, in addition to other, appropriate consequences.
If Mr. Barnett wishes to appeal this decision, he must file a written appeal within seven (7)
days with Dr. Roger Blais, Provost of the University of Tulsa. The decision of the Provost
will be final. No further appeals are available .

•

•

•