For almost a year, Paul Barrows has been near the forefront of a tense political relationship between the University of Wisconsin and the state Legislature. His case, in many ways, has symbolized the university's inability — perceived or actual — to dismiss an unwanted employee. On April 14, the UW Academic Staff Appeals Committee deemed disciplinary action taken against Barrows unfounded, and a final ruling on the committee's recommendation is due from Provost Patrick Farrell by June 5. Recently, Barrows sat down with The Badger Herald to discuss the case, which for him, he said, has been "pure hell." This is the first of a three-part series.

All but the youngest students on campus can remember a time when Paul Barrows worked in relative obscurity, certainly far from the local — and, occasionally, national — headlines.

If Barrows was to make the news prior to his sudden departure from campus Nov. 4, 2004, it most likely was to laud contributions he made in the university's diversity efforts, and, as he is quick to point out, two of the very programs he created — POSSE and PEOPLE — continue to thrive where he has fallen.

So exactly how did one of UW's most respected and accomplished administrators come to represent a scapegoat for people both within and outside the university? If you ask Barrows, this whole ordeal has been a lesson in due process.

"I've given 17 of my best years to this university and to this community," Barrows said. "How could people so quickly rush to judgment and condemn someone without really giving that individual the benefit of the doubt in terms of getting all of the facts?"

Upon taking his forced leave in November 2004, the university and Barrows cited only personal issues and "changing family circumstances," but Chancellor John Wiley later acknowledged a consensual relationship with a 40-year-old graduate student was a "significant factor" in Barrows' leave of absence.

According to Barrows, Wiley told him he learned of the relationship for the first time on Oct. 28, 2004, though Barrows contends the chancellor was aware of it dating back to early September of the same year.

On Nov. 1 of that year, however, former Dean of Students Luoluo Hong sent Wiley a memo accusing Barrows of engaging in sexual harassment, which, according to Barrows, served as the impetus for his immediate removal.

"From early September, when John Wiley knew about this consensual relationship, right through the end of October, there were no issues with me in terms of my role in this consensual relationship," Barrows said. "John Wiley was aware of it. [Special assistant to the chancellor] Casey Nagy was aware of it. Nobody had any issues."

The investigation

The following summer, after news of the sexual harassment allegations against Barrows were publicized, the university commissioned Judge Susan Steingass to conduct an investigation into the allegations and into the sick leave Barrows had been on since the previous November.

While Steingass reported and meticulously detailed allegations of sexual harassment from several women, she admittedly never confronted Barrows with the specific allegations of two key accusers, Chandrika Mahadeva and Sarah Fuller.

"I didn't give him the specific allegations," Steingass testified at Barrows' appeals hearing April 10. "I asked him more than once whether he had ever engaged in any sexual behavior … and whether he had ever engaged in any behavior that anyone could reasonably construe as sexual harassment."

She could not be reached for further comment as of press time.

Barrows criticized Steingass for not confronting him with specific allegations and called the investigation "terribly poor," saving some of his harshest words for the woman who he feels failed as a neutral investigator.

"She didn't do a credible investigation, and she only took one side when she put in all of that tabloid-type stuff that really had no place in that report," Barrows said. "I think she did a terribly poor job in terms of how she handled that."

The criticism

Both before and after the September 2005 release of Steingass' report, Barrows faced an extraordinary level of scrutiny from select Republican legislators, whom he said were looking for cause to attack the university.

"It was grossly unfair to me and even outrageous that a number of these politicians would rush to judgment and really use my case, my situation, to give them cover for some of the terrible policies and actions that they have taken to undermine this great university," Barrows said. "If anybody is a bottom-feeder, it's somebody who would move to such heights to destroy somebody's reputation when they don't have all of the facts."

Rep. Scott Suder, R-Abbotsford, who some would put at the very top of the list of Republicans eager to attack UW, offered no apologies to the former vice chancellor, and, in a recent interview with The Capital Times, described Barrows' attorney as being of the character such that he would defend Osama bin Laden.

While Suder said in an interview with The Badger Herald that "my heart goes out" to Barrows if, in fact, the sexual harassment allegations are entirely false, he is now more resolute than ever in his criticism of the embattled administrator.

"I don't think he can argue that he hasn't received due process, but the fact remains that he bilked taxpayers for being sick when he wasn't," Suder said. "I frankly think the man should be fired."

Even more than state politicians, though, Barrows spoke with anger and contempt for Wiley — a man, Barrows said, who was at one time a good friend.

As he tells the story, Barrows was victimized by a political culture in which the Legislature continued its budget cuts on the university while simultaneously complaining about policy issues such as the encouragement of stem-cell research. In that environment, Barrows said, Wiley used the case as political capital to appease his critics.

"When Wiley's derriere was on the line and the university's budget was in jeopardy, he threw me to the wolves like a cheap piece of meat," Barrows said. "And so would a friend do something like that? No."

The decision

As Barrows and UW anxiously await the written recommendation and reasoning from the Academic Staff Appeals Committee May 5, Barrows and his attorney are already dreading the subsequent decision from Farrell.

Normally, the ASAC recommendation would go to Wiley, but because of his clear involvement in the case, he has relegated the responsibility to his newly appointed provost.

It doesn't satisfy Barrows, however. To this point, UW administration and the Board of Regents alike have rejected Barrows' request to forward judgment on the recommendation to the regents' Personnel Matters Review Committee.

"He can appeal it to us, [but] he's trying to appeal it to us before they have the final say," Board of Regents President David Walsh said. "This isn't any different than anybody else. It's just because he's gotten more publicity. We're not going to buckle to that."

Barrows, however, contends his case is different. In his mind, "there is nothing normal" about his case, and he said ASAC was designed for employees grieving disciplinary actions taken against them by directors, supervisors or — at the most — an associate dean.

Moreover, Barrows said, Wiley deferring to Farrell does not adequately remove the chancellor and his administration from the process. At his hearing, Barrows' attorney, Lester Pines, said the two have "no confidence" in the fairness and objectivity of anyone in the Bascom Hall administration.

"Everybody knows that Pat Farrell and John Wiley are good friends — they're both from engineering," Barrows said. "Everybody has known that they've been good friends for many, many years, and so there's already an apparent conflict of interest here, and he certainly is beholden to John Wiley."

On behalf of Wiley and Farrell, UW Communications had no comment.

Walsh, however, expressed his confidence in the process and said Farrell would be hard pressed not to accept the committee's unanimous recommendation without some valid and sound reasoning.

"I have no reason to believe that [Farrell] won't look at it," he said. "We have a unanimous decision by a committee. Let him make a decision, and if he wants us to review it, we can review it after that.”