What the case is about
A federal judge reviewed the university's decision not to renew a visiting lecturer's one‑year appointment and relied on the university's uncontested account of events. The lecturer, employed as a faculty of practice (a non‑tenure, one‑year post), circulated an email titled "Declaration of Diversity" that criticized hiring and diversity practices, accused staff and faculty of racism and collusion, and included a boxed warning ordering preservation of documents and communications.
Who the lecturer was and how he was hired
The plaintiff was appointed after URI recruited a senior administrator who asked the university to help find employment for her domestic partner. When outside placement was not found, the university named him a visiting professor for a semester and then appointed him to a faculty of practice to teach elective undergraduate and graduate courses in constitutional law and advocacy. The political science chair decided he could teach electives but lacked qualifications to teach core curriculum.
The controversial email and declaration
On October 26, 2020, the lecturer sent the email to the university president and many faculty, staff, students, law enforcement, and government officials. The message targeted the chief diversity officer and criticized specific hiring processes. It asserted that the lecturer's private organization, Diversity Think Tank, was headquartered at URI and said the organization would "directly target and expose" allegedly discriminatory policies.
Faculty response and conduct allegations
Several faculty members told the department chair they were concerned about the email and the declaration. At a department meeting the lecturer reportedly talked over colleagues and spoke about "bringing in his army of lawyers." Faculty described the behavior as disruptive and intimidating to others in the department.
How the court handled the record
Because the plaintiff did not respond to the university's summary judgment motion, Judge Steven McAuliffe (D.N.H.) accepted the defendants' recitation of material facts as uncontested. The court's opinion summarizes the appointment history, the email and declaration contents, the signatories, the faculty concerns, and the reported disruptive conduct. Based on that record, the court upheld the university's nonrenewal decision.
What the opinion shows for campus disputes
The decision illustrates how procedural posture in litigation—here, a failure to contest a summary judgment motion—can lead a court to rely on one party's account of events. It also shows how campus disputes over hiring, diversity claims, and conduct in faculty settings can produce contested claims that a court may resolve largely on the documentary record.