- Rationale


"We expect our professors to criticize each other, to debate, to question authority...the actions themselves fall under the realm of educational employment in a university setting...the actions themselves, the actions of criticizing, debating, and questioning authority do serve a legitimate purpose...". [Zeke Wiedenfeld, Court Commissioner, Walworth County Circuit Court]

My name is Chris Henige. I have taught art history at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater since 2001.

The purpose of this site is to provide all of the documentation associated with my experiences at the university starting in 2012 and carrying through to the present day. I will be starting with the current and moving backward through time, and more materials will continue to appear on this site over time.

The documents, audio and commentary contained in this site are all a matter of public record.

- Complaint 1

Exhibit 75 - Considerations


As you read through the documentation, and listen to the audio files, consider the following questions. Those of you on the hearing panel or are serving as counsel to the Chancellor should make special note of any instances you find, as I will most certainly be asking you to cite them. Also note that no allegation has ever been made about anything I said verbally and that was not also in writing.

- The audio files are best listened to using headphones. The individuals speaking are often some distance from the recorder.

Exhibit 358 - Consideration

Matters of Public Concern?

Are the issues I have raised matters of public concern? Is the degree to which we are serving or not serving the students a matter of public concern? This document is the "University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents' 2015 Statement Reiterating the Board's Commitment to Academic Freedom and Affirming its Commitment to Freedom of Expression".

Exhibit 71 - Consideration

Business or Personal?

Are there any emails or other communications sent by me that are not related to university business?

Exhibit 79 - Consideration

Allegation or Proof?

According to the Faculty Personnel Rules, the chancellor has the "burden of proof" relative to the charges against me. As you read the complaints, are the allegations substantiated in any way by substantive proof? Has the Chancellor cited any specific examples of my language or actions that offer proof of the charges?

Exhibit 72 - Consideration

True of False?

Obviously, I contend that everything contained in all of my communications is true. The recipients and others have describe these communications as "unsubstantiated", "unsupported", "defamatory", and "accusatory" (but never actually "false" or "untrue"). Have the recipients, or anyone else, provided any alternative accounting for the issues I have raised? Any demonstration (not allegation but actual proof) that my assertions are false?

Exhibit 73 - Consideration

Addressed or Not Addressed?

Is there any evidence presented by the recipients of my communications, or anyone else, that the issues I raised were ever addressed?

Exhibit 74 - Consideration

Real or Perceived?

A great many of the exhibits provided as "evidence" against me are not my communications but other people's reactions to those communications. Should people's reactions to legitimate and truthful communications dictate what can and cannot be said in those communications? Should I cease expressing my concerns about these issues simply because the recipients don't want to hear them?

Exhibit 76 - Consideration

Legitimate Hearing or Kangaroo Court?

Relative to the proceedings, does there seem to be any recognition on the part of those empaneled to hear my case that they have an obligation to abide by the Faculty Personnel Rules or State Statutes?

Exhibit 77 - Consideration

Legal or Illegal?

When I question the legality of actions on the part of the administration, have they provided any legal support for their positions?

Exhibit 374 - Consideration

Whistleblower Retaliation?

Are the issues I have raised matters of public concern? Has the administration taken adverse action against me as a result of raising those issues? Have the actions of the administration had a chilling effect on others who might raise the same kinds of issues? Have the actions taken by the administration been unusual or extraordinary, and have they occurred immediately following my exercise of my legal right to express these matters of public concern?

Exhibit 78 - Conclusions


In light of these considerations, and what you see in the documentation, do you have concerns about what you see and what has occurred?

- Contents


As You Read
Things to consider...

The Long Summary
A 28-page document summarizing the events of the last several years

All My Communications
(Those attached to complaints)

Initial "Complaint"
Filed May 8, 2013

Second Complaint
Filed December 30, 2013

Third Complaints
Filed September 5 and 15, 2014

First Kangaroo Court
December 29, 2014 to June 12, 2015

Temporary Restraining Order
January 17, 2015

Fourth Complaint
Filed January 26, 2015

Second Kangaroo Court
October 2, 2015 to January 4, 2016

More to come in between...

Appeal to the Regents
Filed July 29, 2016

Sixth Complaint
Filed September 4, 2016

Seventh Complaint (Seeking Dismissal for Cause)
Filed February 21, 2017

Third Kangaroo Court (Seeking Dismissal for Cause)
February 21, 2017 to present

Dismissal Hearing Video
September 8, 2017

Hearing Aftermath
After September 8, 2017

Proceedings with the Regents
October 27, 2017 to present

Positions Taken by the UWW
From the beginning to the present

Exhibits relevant to the Hearings