- 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 6

Exhibit 91 - Sep 2, 2014 - Background

Grievances filed against Melton and Messer

This documents the entire history of these grievances, which were never dismissed, and never adjudicated. I withdrew them after 19 months of inactivity. They speak for themselves. They are a matter of public record.

Exhibit 90 - May 9, 2016 - The Meeting

The Meeting at Jessicas

The "Meeting Rules of Conduct" finally gets discussed, and unanimously rejected. After all of the brouhaha about discussing it, how "time-sensitive department business had been derailed", the reading of the document, its discussion, and its resounding defeat took all of 6 minutes. It's worth noting that again Melton and Messer state that the "Meeting Rules of Conduct" were "never policy", and yet in Melton's petition for the temporary restraining order, she suggests otherwise. Then the documentation of the never-adjudicated grievances cited above was introduced, and once again those whose conduct is called into question scuttle the meeting. I was in New York during the period in question.

Exhibit 92 - Sep 4, 2016 - Complaint

Complaint filed by Melton and Messer

I was in New York during the period in question

Exhibit 93 - Sep 4, 2016 - Complaint - Exhibits

Exhibits attached to the complaint

I was in New York during the period in question

Exhibit 94 - Sep 15, 2016 - Complaint - Notification

Notification from the Chancellor

I requested clarification as to how this complaint was valid, because it did not describe any conduct on my part that occurred within the 120-day limit for such complaints - I was in New York during the period in question. The Chancellor replied that she had determined it was valid so it was valid.

Exhibit 95 - Dec 16, 2016 - Investigator's Report

Investigator's Report

The investigators recommended dismissal because it was "not timely filed" (I may have mentioned that above).

Exhibit 96 - Dec 23, 2016 - Disposition


The Chancellor, 110 days after the complaint was filed, now admits that it was "not timely filed".......................................................I may have mentioned that above...........................

- 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