It seemed peculiar that Paul Barrows, an embattled former University of Wisconsin Vice Chancellor now relegated to a permanent backup position on campus, would request that his hearing before the Academic Staff Appeals Committee be open to the public. These things are kept private for a reason — pleasantries do not exactly rule the room. But Mr. Barrows fought for open doors nonetheless.

Then, over the course of Monday and Tuesday while the hearing proceeded, a strange factoid seemed to slowly come to the surface as Louis Brandeis' famed prescription of sunshine was properly applied: We had almost all been deceived.

To be sure, Mr. Barrows is a character not without flaws. His hearing this week did nothing to counter accusations that he, while in a position of power, engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a student. This seems to now be an undisputed parcel of truth. And that affair — as it ought to — will long haunt the former vice chancellor.

But over the course of the past year, many more allegations have been piled onto Mr. Barrows' name and, as his hearing began to demonstrate, many of them were accompanied by a certain brand of ethos of which they were wholly undeserving.

In September 2005, Susan Steingass released an independent report on Mr. Barrows, Chancellor John Wiley, the arrangements of paid sick leave for the former vice chancellor and panoply of other allegations surrounding the man's name. It was a hefty report, replete with startling insights into the world of Mr. Barrows, and, until this week, it was the preeminent document of record in this whole affair.

Serious questions must now be asked about the weight of Ms. Steingass' report.

Late Monday morning, Chandrika Mahadeva, one of the women quoted in Ms. Steingass' report, took the stand to testify against Mr. Barrows. This was the woman many of us had come to know as the recipient of a crude pickup line by Mr. Barrows, and her allegations were plentiful. The Steingass report portrayed Ms. Mahadeva as a victim, harassed by Mr. Barrows and made to feel uncomfortable in her own place of work.

In-person testimony painted an entirely different picture.

Ms. Mahadeva rambled on the stand, relating lengthy anecdotes of supposed harassment, each composed with an eye on absurd and random detail. Some of the incidents relayed by the key witness simply didn't pass the laugh test.

The real scandal behind Ms. Mahadeva is that someone with as questionable an emotional state as hers was somehow gainfully employed by the university for so long. Frankly, UW should not be in the business of giving jobs to people as plainly disturbed and poorly composed as Ms. Mahadeva.

On Tuesday, other witnesses took the stand and testified to Ms. Mahadeva possessing these very attributes during her time at UW.

Not only is this woman sufficiently deprived of ethos as to lack credibility, but also her horrific absence of composure must lead one to ask why Ms. Steingass would choose to quote this individual in an authoritative report.

Indeed, the Barrows appeals hearing this week was not so much a reaffirmation of what we all once thought to be true but, rather, a civics lesson in the necessity of due process and the fundamental American right to confront one's accuser(s). (Though Mr. Barrows' attorney, Lester Pines, opted not to cross-examine Ms. Mahadeva in an apparent gesture toward putting the media-filled gallery out of its pain as promptly as possible.)

Aside from Ms. Mahadeva, the university's case was, frankly, unimpressive. There were not bombshell witnesses, Mr. Pines seemed to have his way with cross-examination, and Ms. Steingass' report was slowly deflated in a most horrifying manner.

By the time Mr. Barrows presented his case, it was all about character and credibility — two things he seemed to be rapidly regaining.

To whatever extent the truth has worked its way toward the public at long last this week, the details, for sure, remain complex. There are multiple demotions, multiple allegations and multiple forms of leave in question.

But, as is so often the case, the impression one takes away from an intricate set of circumstances is not a finite understanding of every detail's weight and value but, rather, a larger appreciation of dignity and ethos.

In that sense, regardless of how the ASAC rules this Friday, Mr. Barrows appears to have finally won a round in what is surely the fight of his life.

Mac VerStandig ([email protected]) is editor in chief of The Badger Herald and a senior majoring in rhetoric.