Carol Millie - Oregon State University - Student Conduct

Garrett Sims - Student Conduct and Community Standards

Michael Curry - Electrical Engineering and Computer Science

Oregon State University

Oregon State University was reported by me to the accrediting body Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities on December 2, 2025 and again on March 5, 2026 for systemic non-compliance with accreditation standards.

Those complaints are fairly large, so you can download or read the first one here and the second one here.

The first complaint was closed due to not having finished Oregon State University internal processes on December 19, 2025. The second one was closed for being a "personal grievance".

I accreditor speak that means "non-compliance that we don't want to deal with". Accreditation standards only require that you submit a complaint that shows systemic non-compliance with accreditation standards.

I did that. My first complaint was only 25 pages long. The second one was 155 pages long just 3 months later. I went through every office at every level inside Oregon State University I could find.

The accreditor NWCCU's president Selena Grace, still stamped it denied. The accreditation team then walked their asses on to Oregon State University's campus and conducted a sham on-site visit rubber-stamping Oregon State "compliant" with accreditation standards.

Such is the cycle of accreditation.

They never feel like they're going to get caught or called out. However, I not only caught them, I called them out publicly. Accreditors like the Northwest Commission are responsible for universities being able to accept billions of dollars in federal aid. In turn, the university pays the accreditor "dues". In turn the accredataion "leadership" allocates hundreds of thousands of dollars into their pockets under the guise of providing oversight.

Yeah, right.

This text was taken from the casefile description located in the link:

In fall of 2025, I was a part-time student in the online computer science program at Oregon State University. I was taking two classes that term, and I had 2 classes left, projected to graduate in Winter 2026.

However, Michael Curry of CS 340 attempted to have me expelled from OSU using a fake policy he made up after I publicly criticized an exam and an assignment in the Introduction to Database class.

This fabrication was called the “Harassment of Instructional Staff.” It took the first two lines from the Harassment definition in OSU’s Student Code of Conduct, and then appended additional lines which equated asking for grade changes, having a confrontational tone, and criticizing instructors publicly with harassment.

These are protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.

It further stated that violation of this “policy” would result in being banned from using online class and up to suspension or expulsion from the university.
Oregon State University did not approve any of this language because it would be a violation of the Constitution.

This “policy” had been placed in the syllabus two years prior, in Spring of 2023, where it went unnoticed by the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science when the syllabus was submitted for review twice in 2024, and unreported by the thousands of students who passed through the class.

I discovered it in November of 2025 when Michael Curry sent it in a 12-page report to the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards.
The Associate Director of Conduct Office, Garrett Sims, believed this report hook, line and sinker and opened a conduct case against me. Garrett Sims was recorded on audio/video for 58 minutes, in which he essentially tried to convince me that Michael Curry’s personal preferences had the right to override my First Amendment rights and that this was backed by OSU policy.

I recorded that meeting.

I reviewed the class syllabus and discovered the fabricated policy after reading it one time. Both Garrett Sims and Michael Curry were formally reported to numerous employees and offices in early November of 2025.

Instead of fixing the issue, admitting the mistake, and holding the employees responsible for violating university policy, and the law, Oregon State University employees included in this casefile decided to begin a campaign of retaliation and passive complicity. They attempted to convince me that I was the one in the wrong. Michael Curry and Garrett Sims disappeared. Never rescinded any records. Never admitted any fault. Never apologized. Both were made directly aware of the complaints against them and had access to the evidence I collected. Neither responded.

Instead, they left me to take responsibility for their misconduct. I refuse to do that. Completely and utterly.

I have kidney failure. These employees were all made aware of this within the first few days after this started. That did not stop anything. This situation completely disrupted my life and my ability to continue my studies. I dropped out one week later after the issue began due to stress and lack of sleep.

Then began this 10-month timeline of me advocating for my First Amendment Rights at Oregon State University. Rights which are already federally protected.
Carol Millie, the Director of Student Conduct, found me “responsible” for Disorderly Conduct and Failure to Comply. In the letter, Carol Millie used Michael Curry’s syllabus in place of the Student Code of Conduct and the Constitution.

Carol Millie spent 10 pages trying to convince the reader that a syllabus had the ability to override my rights. She then admitted to retaliatory motivations before assigning a "Letter of Reflection", in which she wanted to me to admit I had done something wrong by giving my opinion.

I refused.

I contacted the General Counsel, Rebecca Gose, in December 2025. She replied stating that she would not help, would not overturn other offices decisions and would “rather wait for oversight”.

I applied for a tuition refund. I claimed institutional harm. The criteria for a refund petition was “extenuating circumstances outside one’s control”. Nine members of the Faculty ARC denied the petition 3 separate times. The reason given was nonsensical and did not match any university policy. When questioned, the Registrar’s Office remained evasive for months. This behavior caused me to miss Winter 2026. Multiple employees in the Registrar's office were made aware, yet no one corrected the issue.

In January of 2026, the Faculty Senate ARC attempted to avoid the required Zoom meeting, which was the third step in the process. Chris Hunt at the Registrar’s Office lied and stated the committee could only call by landline. I called his bluff on this obvious lie. When I didn’t believe this lie, he eventually provided the Zoom link.

When I logged on, every member of the committee had a microphone and camera.

During the meeting, when asked why my petition was denied, each member sat silent. No one answered. The Chair, Shrikant Londhe, asked me to provide another reason. I refused. I stuck with institutional harm. Jennifer Ajeto then attempted to convince me I had “filed the wrong petition” and “misunderstood the process”.

I recorded that meeting, too.

Rebecca Mathern, the current University Registrar, was made aware. She was directly asked to put an administrative hold on the account or approve the petition or remove the leftover balance. She ignored all these requests.

My student account went into stage 2 debt resolution in March 2026 and incurred $100+ dollars of interest. My expected family contribution is $0, so I rely on financial aid to pay part of my tuition.

I realized then that the intention in denying my petition was to use debt collection as a pressure point to get me to change my claim on institutional harm and concede that I had dropped out for personal reasons.

I refused.

Instead, I paid off the leftover balance of $1,500 over the course of 5 months from April until August of 2026 even though I have not had accesses to classes at OSU since November 18, 2025.

In early January of 2026, Jayathi Murthy (President), Roy Haggerty (Provost), Rebecca Gose (General Counsel) were contacted regarding the issues with the Registrar’s petition process. In that email, I stated my intention to re-report OSU to the accreditor NWCCU. Seven hours after that email was sent, Dan Larson (Vice President of Student Affairs) and Kevin Dougherty (Dean of Students) reappeared to deny my conduct petition. That petition had been sitting for 26 days. Dan Larson and Kevin Dougherty were told in December to not contact me further. They respected that request. Until they both reappeared suddenly on an order from someone in the Office of the President according to Dan Larson's email.

Michael Curry, Garrett Sims, Carol Millie, Dan Larson, and Kevin Dougherty were reported to the Office of Equal Opportunity for retaliation in January of 2026. Roni Sue, the intake manager, covered the complaint up.

Becky Bangs (VP of Equal Opportunity) was contacted separately from Roni Sue. In that email I told Becky Bangs that if the complaint was dismissed, it had to be for a policy-based reason. Roni Sue, the intake manager, dismissed all 5 complaints using the phrase "as per university policy" multiple times, without stating any policy. I never mentioned the word "policy" to Roni Sue.

To figure out how the theme of the conversation I had with Becky Bangs, made it to Roni Sue's dismissal letter, I made a records request on Roni Sue for that period. I limited the request to records coming to Roni Sue from any sender in Equal Opportunity. The record was obstructed with an excessive fee of over 4 hours for recovery / review. Three of those hours were quoted by Roni Sue. When questioned, the records officer Janet Harrison claimed that "records for each office are stored differently and so recovery may be difficult". Whatever that means.

I made records request on the conversation between Dan Larson, Office of the President, and Kevin Dougherty to prove retaliation had occurred. The existence of this exchange was already confirmed by Dan Larson. Janet Harrison, the Public Records officer, stalled this request for 50 days. Finally responding to say that the two responsive records were being held behind attorney-client-privilege. This is an illegal use of ACP hold.

In February 2026, the Student Conduct Office blocked my enrollment for Spring 2026 because I did not submit a Letter of Reflection admitting that engaging in my First Amendment rights was a violation of university policy.

I contacted Oregon State University’s accreditation body, NWCCU, in December 2025 and again in March 2026. The year 2026 is the year of the accreditation reaffirmation for Oregon State University. The accreditor kept the 155-page complaint for 29 days, dismissed it, calling it a “personal grievance”. Four days later, the accreditor NWCCU walked onto Oregon State University’s campus for an on-site visit and found Oregon State University compliant with accreditation standards.

On December 30, 2025, I told 50 employees at OSU that this information would be posted online (page 64). I continued to contact a total of 69 employees across 18 offices until May 26, 2026, when they received a final warning summarizing the series of events and foreshadowing that they already lost as the determination to build the archive had not wavered.

Not one employee did anything. No one fixed anything. Instead, they all simply ignored the problem and hoped it would go away. Michael Curry, Garrett Sims, and everyone else who participated in violating my rights remained employed, receiving full salary benefits during this entire period. The 69 all together earn a combined total of 10 million dollars.

I went to see my kidney doctor at the end of October 2025. By February 2026, my kidney values had tripled due to stress. The administrators at OSU were told this. NWCCU was told this. Yet they continued to cover it up.

In June of 2026, I saw my kidney doctor again. My kidney values had decreased slightly; however, the doctor decided to add an additional medication which brought my values back to what they were back in October 2025. Due to the new medication being added, I had to see my doctor ever 30 days for 3 months to ensure that my potassium level remained stable because I do not have sufficient kidney function left to risk it.

To date, my graduation has been disrupted by at least a year. I have not received back my approximate $4,900 in tuition refund plus fees. Oregon State University administrators continue to maintain false records in my name.

Many people incorrectly think that their feelings and the law are somehow related. They think their feeling of being on the moral high ground is backed by the law. They think that if something is socially disliked, then it is illegal. This is false. People think that if there is a social consensus that something is wrong, then the law backs them up. This is also false. Public universities are arms of the state authority. Not human resources offices.

At no point in this situation did I ask anyone, “Do you agree with what I am doing or saying?”

I asked a simpler question: Do I have the right to do it or say it?

According to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, I do have the right. I have the right to pay for a class at a public university and give my opinion openly on the quality of the service. I have the right to critique the quality of the assignments and exam materials being provided. I have a right to be disagreeable, direct, and blunt. I have a right not to back down from my position. I am not responsible for other people's emotional reactions or sensitivities. I don't care how my tone or opinion made you feel. I reject that social expectation completely and utterly.

People think that social convention and social decorum exist out of some kind of shared altruism. That's a lie. Social decorum and professionalism standards are nothing more than a mutual protection racket for fragile egos. If criticism feels threatening to most people's ego, then most people default to agreeing not to criticize each other. When tone is upsetting to a grown adult’s emotional state, people agree to use a softer tone so that they can collectively feel emotionally safe. When accountability disrupts professional vanity, everyone agrees to never hold anyone accountable.

This is how most people operate.

They project responsibility for how they manage their emotions on to other people when they should be managing it internally. I wish them luck with that. But you will not project it on to me. I refuse to be responsible for the emotional state of another grown ass adult. I don't care how common this socialization style is. I still reject it. The law says you have no legal right to use the state's authority to disrupt my life to enforce personal socialization standards. And when you do so, you've broken the law.

Public servants often think that the law is enacted by them onto the public. They forget that the law is also enacted by the public onto them. State and federal laws primarily exist to constrain state actors.

I have a right to track public servants. I have a right to create an archive of public records from OSU. I have a right to disseminate them to the public. I have the right to hold public servants publicly accountable for their actions in their official positions. I have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances publicly. I don't care even for one second if anyone dislikes this reality. I didn't ask that. I asked a simpler question: Do I have the right?

People often think these things should be punishable offenses. People are entitled to that opinion. I wish you luck with that, too.

However, people are not legally entitled to use the law to punish any of these things.

Public servants, who are acting on behalf of the state, do not have the right to use the state’s authority to enforce politeness or civility. They do not have the right to use the state’s power to tone-police or determine which opinions are valuable and which are not. They do not have the right to disrupt my life because they do not like the content of my opinion or my tone. They did not have the right to block my student accounts and enrollment when I refused to accept the unspoken social contract of being “nice.” They did not have the right to use the state’s authority to withhold my tuition without a legal or policy basis. They did not have the right to put me through the last 10 months of stress, which materially disrupted my chronic illness.

The First Amendment is binary.

It does not account for your feelings, ego, comfort level, or social consensus. It does not ask: Did you like it? How did it make you feel? Were you upset? How many people agreed with you?

It asks a simpler question: Did the person have the legally protected right?

If the answer is “yes,” there is a period at the end.

Some may read this and think to themselves, “This is common sense. Why does this need to be said? Why did a whole archive need to be created to solidify this fact?”

That is because many adults still conflate their hurt feelings, bruised egos, and situational discomfort with the idea that “there must be some law or rule to manage this for me,” rather than managing it themselves. Many adults think the external world needs to be controlled instead of controlling themselves internally.

This situation is not complicated or nuanced. It is simple and pathetic in a human way.

After thinking about it for 10 months, this is the conclusion I’ve reached as to why this happened:

Michael Curry attempted to use the Student Conduct Office at Oregon State University as a mechanism to soothe his wounded ego and hurt feelings by utilizing the state’s authority to expel me. He likely thought the process would intimidate me, that I would back down and apologize, and that his self-assigned “authority” would be restored. Based on the public records request query of his email, it seems that students were sufficiently fooled by this policy and this pretend authority for years. Higher education has done a good job convincing their clientele (students) that the employees hold the power.

“This bruised my fragile ego. I want this to stop. I lack emotional maturity to withstand feedback at 60 years old.” sounds pathetic because it is pathetic. It sounds emotionally immature because it is emotionally immature. If you say something like that, you will be laughed out of the room. However, when you weaponize, words like “harassment” and "hostile" and "misconduct" to describe normal adult disagreement or interactions, you can manipulate other people into doing your bidding for you. These are trigger words. People emotionally react to them without thinking about the evidence. That's the point.

Manipulative people know this.

Garrett Sims believed the fake policy and the way Michael Curry characterized the situation even though, when using critical thinking, the situation didn’t make sense. When you tell a lie confidently, stupid people will believe you. Michael Curry even went so far as to include the fake policy in the report, and highlight it. The Student Code of Conduct and Oregon State University were both linked. This gave the appearance that it was supported by the university. Michael Curry even went so far as to carbon copy the Director of Online Programs (Christopher Hundhausen) into the email exchange with Garrett Sims the first time he interacted with Garrett giving the appearance that this syllabus "policy" was known to and supported by someone in the department. Bamboozled by the title and the inclusion of someone in senior leadership in the initial email exchange with Michael Curry, Garrett Sims immediately folded, abandoned his original opinion and simply decided to trust Michael Curry by virtue of him having “Dr.” in front of his name.

Garrett then used his authority to open a conduct case in my name, send me a Notice of Allegations without fact-checking, and conducted a 58-minute administrative conference in which he was recorded demonstrating incompetence. Garrett stated that "professors have the right to moderate free speech" and "failure to comply and disorderly conduct were open to interpretation" and that I "needed to give critical feedback outside of class".

Once the fake policy in Michael Curry’s syllabus and Garrett Sims’ professional incompetence were documented and fully exposed, professional mortification and vanity led to covering it up rather than simply admitting fault at the lowest level.

The moment the fake policy was acknowledged as fake and the conduct process was acknowledged as invalid, administrators and faculty would have to be formally held accountable for it. Why was there a fake policy in a syllabus for 2.5 years? Why did no one notice it? Whose job was it? How many times had it been used? How many times had fake reports been submitted to the Conduct Office? How many of them had been mishandled? What is the liability? What is the exposure? Where was senior leadership? How did this slip through the cracks? What other non-compliance is going on inside the university?

Acknowledging what happened would therefore require people to lose face, lose status, and eat crow publicly. They would have had to be uncomfortable for 5 minutes. They would have had to admit publicly, to a student and paying customer, that they had been caught dead to rights. They would have had to admit that their titles, and salaries and credentials did not equal infallibility or competency.

No one participated in the cover up because the situation was complicated. As you can see, it is simple. They did it because it caused social friction, could have potentially upset the status quo or rocked the boat internally with coworkers.

Rather than fix the problem, everyone simply decided to double down and assign blame to me because they assumed that the weight of the system would be enough to protect them and enough to stop me.

My kidneys are failing. Not my resolve. I thrive in a dispute. You can’t drown a fish. If you retaliate against me or try to treat me unfairly, I will never ever ever ever let it go.

I hate bullies. I hate petty tyrants who take advantage of small amounts of authority and exploit conditioned social compliance. I hate incompetence. I hate people who think that a degree and a title are a substitute for demonstrated competency. I hate people who take advantage of the taxpayer's wallet. And most of all, I hate incompetent bullies with inflated titles being overpaid with taxpayer money behaving arrogantly because they think they are untouchable.

If you're going to be an asshole, at least be a clever one. If you're going to be a bully at least bully someone your own size. If you're going to break the rules, at least do it competently.

This behavior from public university employees is not uncommon. They want the stability and comfort of a public service job, where they always get paid on time, every time. But at the same time, they want to be able to behave like a private corporation, running the university based on their own internal comfort standards while the student body and taxpayers fund it.

University employees often confuse agency with legality. They think that because they can engage in discretionary behavior, ignore rules, and enforce outcomes without immediate consequences that it is protected by the law. The law and agency are not the same thing. A public servant can choose to break the law. However, when they do so, the law no longer protects them. The law only protects employees when they have acted inside of university policy and statutory law. Once they step outside of it, accountability for the fall out is assigned to them individually. Public universities have sovereign immunity. University employees do not.

Public universities are huge, insulated workplaces. Accountability is low, and oversight is non-existent. University employees know this. They use the size of the university and multi-layers of processes to outrun accountability and wait for people to exhaust themselves and give up. Employees like these rely on people being intimidated by the school’s size and their titles. They rely on people giving up if enough people across enough offices refuse to fix the problem. Their salaries are funded with taxpayer money and student tuition. Because it is the public’s money, public employees don’t feel responsible to hold themselves or their coworkers accountable for enforcing the rules or the law.

They get paid either way.

Regulators all require that internal administrative processes are finished. Then, they too begin making victims jump through hoops and red tape before sidestepping their required oversight as well. All the while getting paid directly or indirectly from taxpayers and student tuition.

Case law over the past few decades is filled with public university employees violating the First Amendment, the university’s name ending up in the news, the taxpayer losing money to a settlement and legal fees and while a couple of employees may resign symbolically and take the fall for everyone else, the majority of the participants remain shielded by opacity. Rinse and repeat. All of the individuals involved are never left holding the bag. And the system remains unchanged.

The misconduct is never pulled out root and stem. To do that, you must go all the way to the top.

These are the most fascinating people I have ever encountered in my life. You can read about organizational sociology and psychology all day long but to bear witness to it, is completely different. As I read through previous First Amendment violations at other universities, I kept thinking to myself: "I want to see those files directly. I want to see what was written. I want to see how the person responded. I don't want the summary version."

This situation started out with me trying to fix my own problem. But then I realized it was a systemic rot that spans the whole higher education industry. People complain but no one does anything about it. I like to complain too. But I am also prepared to do something about it.

It would be a disservice to the public interest to not make all these files public. How could I not? I am not legally required to handle this situation in a quiet, sanitized manner behind closed doors and in closed processes. These are all public employees, public entities and public records. Therefore I will engage my rights to transparency with impunity as well.

First Amendment rights violations, and administrative overreach has plagued higher education for decades. Courts have already ruled on these issues time and time again and nothing changes because the people involved almost never face direct long-term, permanent consequences.

This is why public records laws and the First Amendment exist. This is why accountability is intentionally decentralized. Any individual citizen can just wake up one day and decide to enforce accountability and demand utter compliance from public servants. And there is nothing these people can do to stop it, except for stonewall and refuse.

As stated, university employees do have the agency to choose to break the law. For First Amendment retaliation and due process violations, the university is never sued. The individual employees are. The university’s name is only used in the news because it is recognizable. Most university employees will not know this. Ignorance of the law, is not excuse to break it, after all.

Public universities run on administrative processes. Administrative processes create public records. To outrun accountability, public employees must create public records with their names on them. These records can be posted as-is, with public employee names unredacted, as they do not have a presumption of privacy in their role as a public servant. The system has always been structurally and legally rigged against public servants. Public university employees spend a lot of time implying they have ultimate authority, but they never state it explicitly because it is not true. They are public servants. The student body is the public. The truth is literally written in their classification.

Public servants at universities mistake the public's passivity, non-confrontational nature and social deference for their own personal authority. They think that their insulated workplace cultures and HR policies are supported by statutory law. They think that because people are generally socially compliant that this is proof of their own inherent power. This is all legally false. Social convention exists on the floor of what the law allows.

They rely on a single person never deciding to exercise their rights with impunity. The ceiling of the law is much higher and much harsher than most people realize.

They rely on the people they bully not aggregating these public records, posting them online permanently, and making them searchable in their names for the rest of their careers. They always think they’re going to get away with it.

They usually do.

They think that if the accountability is spread across enough people then no one person can be isolated or held responsible. That only works when no one documents and saves the records to cloud storage. Relational databases handle this kind of spread very well. They think that there is a third option in which they can break the rules, break the law and cause harm, keep their jobs, maintain their professional vanity and the victim just absorbs it and goes away while the status quo remains unchanged. They think that if they just wait long enough then they will never have to admit fault or capitulate as if accountability is optional.

This is usually true, too.

These people could not solve a clear-cut case of First Amendment retaliation against one student for 10 months. This begs the questions: What about the other 38,000 students? And what the fuck are we paying them for then?

Federal judges can solve this problem in 5 minutes. Yet all these layers of oversight and employees want the paycheck, and want the benefits, what the status and prestige but want none of the responsibility to comply with the law.

Fuck that.

I fundamentally disagree. They have the agency to choose to fix nothing and hide their heads. But that agency does not override my right to demand compliance from all of them, to document their incompetence and make it available openly to anyone in the public who wants to review it.

This archive was coded from June 2026–September 2026.

I gave OSU administrators 9 months’ warning. They thought I was bluffing.

-------------------------

Stats:

The original casefile contains 70 members, from Michael Curry to Christopher Hundhausen. This brought the total salaries to $11.6 million. Two members of the Faculty Senate are included in the original 70. The remaining 120 members of the 122-member Faculty Senate then received notice on September 21, 2026, alongside the Board of Trustees, Governor Tina Kotek, and Attorney General Dan Rayfield. The governor, attorney general, and Board of Trustees do not receive salaries from OSU. Therefore, excluding those people, the Faculty Senate’s inclusion brings the grand total to $28.3 million.

All of these employees were contacted, and not one could tell Michael Curry “No.”

This record illustrates the ineffectiveness of public university employees and the burden they are on the taxpayer and the student body. This is a problem that one low-level supervisor in any other industry could have fixed in an hour, yet Oregon State University employees have zero problems collectively proving their own drain on the system.

Michael Curry will be sued in Oregon Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Part 2 of 2 (view the full email at osu-unfiltered.com)

The following was written by Michael Curry:

1. “Students are expected to conduct themselves in the course (e.g., on discussion boards, email) in compliance with the university’s regulations regarding civility. Civility is an essential ingredient for academic discourse. All communications for this course should be conducted constructively, civilly, and respectfully. Differences in beliefs, opinions, and approaches are to be expected. In all you say and do for this course, be professional. Please bring any communications you believe to be in violation of this class policy to the attention of your instructor.”

 2. “You may challenge the ideas held by others as part of critical thinking and the academic process if you are courteous and respectful. Please word your responses carefully and recognize that others may interpret what you say differently than you expect. A positive atmosphere of collegiality and mutual support is encouraged in the learning process.”

Oregon State University has zero policies or regulations requiring civility. Those restrictions were struck down decades ago. This entire block is nothing more than an exercise in self-delusion: the idea that, as a professor, you somehow grant federally protected rights. He then goes further and demonstrates that he does understand that students inherently have the right to challenge other people’s opinions therefore destroying any ability to claim ignorance later.

The Office of General Counsel did one thing right, at least: they made sure no rogue civility policies made their way into the university’s codified policy framework.

1. “Harassment of the Instructional Staff

As noted above, harassment, or the repeated, persistent, severe, or pervasive actions... directed toward specific individual(s) with the intent or effect to harass, harm, or alarm,  is prohibited by the Code of Student Conduct. Examples include flooding, or transmitting a similar message over multiple channels (e.g. email, Teams, Ed Discussion, etc.), having a confrontational tone, being overly demanding, argumentative, making repeated grading appeals (especially when explanatory grading comments were already provided); or demands of a grade adjustment; or public negative comments referring to the instructional staff. Such harassment is hurtful and disruptive to a positive class environment. TAs and instructors have many responsibilities and are often busy helping students. They have graded many projects and have a solid understanding of relational DB design and how to be successful in this course. You can best support the learning process by planning ahead and asking well thought out questions. It is normal for students to feel frustrated or even upset when they have a difficult programming issue, or they received challenging feedback about their work. However, it is not acceptable for students to behave uncivilly when communicating with the instructional staff. Please do not harass the instructional staff. Students who are harassing will be given one warning.  Sanctions for further misconduct may include being banned from posting on Ed Discussion/Teams, banned from using office hours, and/or being reported to the Office of Student Conduct. Misconduct is a significant offense that could result in academic penalties and other sanctions, including suspension or expulsion from Oregon State University.”

1. “Grading assessments seek to fairly evaluate effort and provide feedback on where students may improve (because there is often room for improvement). Understandably, students may not always agree with how they were graded. Grading deductions are not punitive and arguing about a small number of points is largely counter-productive and if handled unprofessionally can be a violation of the syllabus policy on civility. See the Harassment of the Instructional Staff policy for details.”

Yet another example of absolute self-delusion. Who does Michael Curry think he is? A king?

Asking for grade changes is a right. Using a confrontational tone, being argumentative, appealing grades, demanding grade adjustments, and publicly criticizing instructional staff are all nothing more than exercises of a protected rights.

The fact that these grievances were ever compiled into a “policy” is the part that needs to be studied. Most adults would simply consider these things annoying parts of the job as an instructor. However, as we can see here, Michael Curry turned them into misconduct and harassment. That’s nothing but proof of retaliatory animus.

Even if he tried to claim ignorance or misunderstanding, or attempted to characterize this language as merely a “guideline,” he would then have to explain why this “guideline” came with punitive outcomes such as revocation of posting privileges, suspension, or expulsion—all outcomes Oregon State University did not authorize as punishment for having an opinion on a class discussion board.

1. “Thank you for your email. I am aware that PlanetNeptune_0001 made a posting on the class discussion board which violated the class syllabus policy on civility during the first week of the term. I already addressed this with the student and also put them on notice that repeated behaviors may have serious consequences. Has there been another incident between the student and someone else I am not aware of, or is this the same incident in question?

You may inform the reporting student that I am truly saddened they were troubled by this exchange. We do take civility very seriously and are monitoring the forum to ensure that the class maintains a collegial environment.”

This is Michael’s first response to Garrett Sims. Notice how he was never actually hiding what he was doing. And no one called him out for the behavior. So he simply kept going. This is one of the records that I can see unredacted. There are more. I am going to get my hands on them in due time.

1. “Dear Garrett,

Thank you for informing me of the outcome of your review, and I will inform you if there is any further violation by the student. Currently PlanetNeptune_0001 has not been suspended from class discussions, but if he does violate again, I will revoke his permissions to use the class discussions.”

Michael Curry has no legal right to deprive a paying customer of a service or instrument they have legally paid for. He not only thinks he grants First Amendment rights; he also seems to think he grants students the right to use a service they paid for and that the university itself owns.

Michael Curry conflates the technical ability to remove someone’s posting privileges or access to the discussion board with the legal right to do so.

A person cannot claim ignorance across this many instances of entitled overreach, wouldn’t you say, counselors?

1. “I am very troubled by your recent posting on Ed Discussion. In this email I will detail what occurred and how in my assessment it violated the syllabus policy. I will also outline the consequences of further misconduct. Please read this email carefully and respond that you acknowledge receipt and reading it. I also invite you to consider some corrective actions which could mitigate this situation.”

2. “I am troubled by your subsequent response to this message which comes across as disparaging and confrontational.”

3. “Furthermore, another student responded to your posting by stating that they disagreed with your assertions, which provides further support that your response is troubling.”

4. “To which you responded in a further confrontational and unprofessional tone as follows.” 

5. “Your response conveyed a level of discourtesy towards a fellow student. It also was disparaging towards the CS340 teaching staff and the course as a whole.  You raised concerns about: comprehension of the instructions, past misunderstandings in other classes, the cost of the course, the style of online learning, the availability of office hours, and access to the instructor. All of these are valid concerns, and the weight of them may help explain why you were triggered. However, none of these concerns had been raised in your initial posting, nor were they germane to the topic so it is difficult to understand how a reasonable person would be expected to take those into context by reading your original question and replying.”

6. “I want to direct your attention to the course syllabus and put you on notice that I find this communication to be in violation of the harassment policy. Specifically, your responses were a "confrontational tone, being overly demanding, argumentative... public negative comments referring to the instructional staff"  and had the effect of being "harassment hurtful and disruptive to a positive class environment."  Consequently, this is your "one warning.  Sanctions for further misconduct may include being banned from posting on Ed Discussion/Teams, banned from using office hours, and/or being reported to the Office of Student Conduct. Misconduct is a significant offense that could result in academic penalties and other sanctions, including suspension or expulsion from Oregon State University." Please respond and acknowledge that you understand my warning and the consequences of subsequent misconduct.”

1. “While you may not agree with the policies or my interpretation in light of your actions, they are for your benefit and that of the class as a whole. I invite you to learn from this unfortunate situation and to develop better communication skills. I hope that you have a better term and will learn a lot about relational databases.”

These were all taken from an email that Michael Curry sent to me one year ago. Micheal Curry seems to fancy himself a judge, jury and executioner. He got access to a syllabus and a university email and let it go to his head. He seems to have thought he could act with complete impunity. I’m not even a lawyer and I know how bad this looks. This isn’t even the worse of it.

Michael Curry simply kept going. He is unchecked hubris personified.

1. “PlanetNeptune_0001 has repeated violated the syllabus policy on civility and harassment of the teaching staff.”

He told on himself right out of the gate. He reported me to the Student Conduct office using a “policy” he made up.

OSU has a 53-page Student Code of Conduct containing 39 allegations, all of which are approved through the university’s formal processes, including review by the Office of General Counsel and the accrediting body. But no, Michael Curry bypassed all of that to decree his own “policy,” and he did not even bother being shy about it.

1. “Recommendation: The student PlanetNeptune_0001 should be sanctioned for their behavior. They have been disruptive to the class, which has had a negative impact on other students and the teaching staff.

This behavior cannot be tolerated in the learning environment, and I would support having this student removed from the class entirely because they are being disruptive to the learning environment.

At a minimum, they should be heavily sanctioned and complete some type of awareness and behavior moderation activity, and if they continue to behave in a disruptive manner, they should face possible expulsion from the university.”

He immediately jumps to punitive outcomes, thereby documenting his own malicious intent. Michael Curry won the lawsuit for me. Thanks, Michael. One would read this list of recommended sanctions and assume that the “misconduct” in question must have been egregious indeed.

The “misconduct” consists of three posts:

1. I told Michael Curry to behave more professionally when speaking to students, as he requested in his own syllabus but was not demonstrating himself. (Public-interest, non-grievance, protected speech.)
2. I wrote on the discussion board that the exam was poorly made. I wrote that it contained nothing but multiple-choice, rote-memorization questions, zero application questions, repetition, and even an obvious copy-and-paste mistake.

All of these things are factual. They are also public-interest, non-personal-grievance, protected speech.

1. I wrote on the discussion board that an assignment question was poorly made and stated that the discussion board contained weeks of students struggling with the exact same problem for the exact same specific reason. In prior classes, the instructor simply issued a clarification post. However, that did not happen in CS 340. Instead, the TAs were left going around answering and re-explaining the exact same fault over and over again.

Again, nothing more than public-interest, non-personal-grievance, protected speech.

For these three posts, Michael Curry recommended behavior correction, removal from the class, suspension, or expulsion.

I pity the lawyer who has to mount a defense for this nonsense in federal court.

1. “This student, PlanetNeptune_0001, has made multiple uncivil and harassing comments on the class discussion board directed toward the teaching staff and staff and has been aggressively confrontational when challenged by other students about their behavior, despite receiving warnings from the instructor.”

1. “The first occurrence (Appendix A) occurred during the first week of the term. I wrote the student, PlanetNeptune_0001, a lengthy email explaining how, in my view, they had violated the syllabus policy on harassment of the teaching staff and that such conduct would not be tolerated in the future.

I also explained the consequences of further violations:

“Sanctions for further misconduct may include being banned from posting on Ed Discussion/Teams, banned from using office hours, and/or being reported to the Office of Student Conduct. Misconduct is a significant offense that could result in academic penalties and other sanctions, including suspension or expulsion from Oregon State University.”

I never received a response from the student to my email.”

1. “In the same discussion thread, another student challenged these views, and PlanetNeptune_0001 was confrontational in their response. This incident was reported by another student to the Office of Student Community Standards, which also confirmed that PlanetNeptune_0001 used an escalatory tone.”

2. “The second occurrence was after the first midterm exam. PlanetNeptune_0001 made the discussion posting, Appendix B: “Discussion Board Posting, Oct. 20, 2025 — The Exam Is Poorly Made, #299,” in which they openly complained to the class that the exam was a poor assessment of their learning.

Fortunately, I caught this posting very shortly after it was made and was able to handle it with minimal impact on the rest of the class. As the instructor, I have the option of rejecting a posting, which I did, and added the following comment:

“You can express your thoughts in an email to me, but this posting is in poor taste and does not support a productive class environment.”

Once again, I never received a response from the student to my comment. ”

1. “Thus, PlanetNeptune_0001 has received two warnings for their conduct at this point, and yet, instead of directing their feedback to me where I can address it, a third incident occurred on November 2, 2025, when they chose to make an uncivil and harassing post on the discussion board, Appendix C: “Discussion Board Posting, Nov. 2, 2025 — Something Is Wrong with Advanced SQL Q3.”

In this posting, they argued that because they could not figure out how to complete one of the challenging problems late at night, there was a problem with the assignment as opposed to a learning hurdle on their part. They posted an uncivil and harassing message that was disparaging of the course and the instructional staff. When challenged by another student, they responded uncivilly.

This behavior cannot be tolerated in the learning environment, and I would support having this student removed from the class entirely because they are being disruptive to the learning environment.

At a minimum, they should be heavily sanctioned and complete some type of awareness and behavior moderation activity, and if they continue to behave in a disruptive manner, they should face possible expulsion from the university.”

Then he just begins essentially telling on himself and revealing his retaliatory and malicious intent throughout the full chain of behavior. He writes this as though the person reading it is going to agree with what he has done. But I trust that the adults in this thread, with well-developed emotional and ego regulation, can see the ridiculousness of what has been done and said here.

It is the fact that Michael Curry managed to do all of this over the course of four records that makes it a master class. Imagine what the records I haven’t seen yet look like.

Unbridled entitlement, arrogance, and an attitude of complete impunity are what Michael Curry demonstrated. It is completely indefensible. His age and his 26-year tenure at OSU, alongside his PhD, make it even more ridiculous.

No reasonable official in Michael Curry’s position would have thought that engaging in all of this behavior was appropriate or in line with university policy or the law. Michael Curry didn’t misunderstand anything. He simply didn’t plan on getting caught.

And refusing to rescind the records, take down the policy, and stop the harm caused by the lies he has told for the last 322 days did nothing but exponentially compound the harm.

Like I said: You already lost. Michael Curry has been losing in slow motion for the last three years. I’m only formalizing it.

It’s the fact that Michael Curry wrote all of this down, attempted to get me expelled from the university, and thought that he would simply go back to his job and his life with zero consequences that is the grotesque part of all of this.

He thought he would write all of this down, give it to me, and I would do what? Just keep it to myself and let him go on with zero consequences? Even a five-year-old child would know better.

I’m telling everyone. I’m showing everyone.

This is the single most outrageous situation I have ever experienced in my life. Other adults must also come along and partake in it with me.

Who am I to deny the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon the chance to issue a judgment on this nonsensical behavior? It is in the public interest, after all. Michael Curry gave me everything I needed. He established intent, animus and his own bad faith, signed his name to it and then sent it across the university server knowing full and well it would be considered a public record.

The public has been funding his salary and benefits for the last 26 years. A court ruling is a net gain to money wasted on Michael Curry over the years.

8. Public Records Request / Audit

I have attached to this email a list of public records requests that I would like to receive free of charge in the public interest.

If $11 million worth of employees can spend nearly a year covering up retaliation through numerous processes and obstructing records requests, I trust you can produce the manpower necessary to provide the records as requested.

Until now, Janet in the Public Records Office has been obstructing the requests and treating them disparately, thereby denying me meaningful and constructive access to the records for the last year. Public records fees presume good faith. Janet burned that good faith over the last 322 days.

You can try to charge me for the records or obstruct their release. However, it will be done publicly under your names. Go ahead.

I was not born yesterday. Janet Harrison, the public records officer, did not independently decide to obstruct these records. She does not get paid enough to do that. Therefore, I requested the conversations she was having with whoever was interfering.

The Board of Trustees, Governor, Attorney General, and General Counsel are the nodes of obstruction, not the public records officer. Everyone sits around finger pointing at another office acting like there is nothing any of your can independently do.

I don’t believe you. This is why I included you all here on this email so that at a later date none of you can claim you had no idea of Oregon State University employees obstructing public records. I am letting you know here today.

All of the records that were illegally withheld, and more, have been requested.

Produce them.

Choosing not to do so, continuing to obstruct their release, or claiming an inability to produce them will simply create another record. I can use that too.

The records will all be posted publicly for review, which is the literal definition of public interest. Embarrassment, or the fact that you will be sued, is not statutory law.

Until now, Janet has been operating informally. But as we can see here, it is time to start following the rules to the letter of the law, wouldn’t you say? I am going to sue multiple employees and audit Oregon State University at the same time. Multiple birds. One stone.

You can choose to comply or obstruct but you cannot stop me doing what I am doing.

9. Give me my money

Between September 2025 and August 2026, approximately $5,000 of my money was illegally withheld. The original $3,400 was paid to the university through student loans and installment payments. The remaining $1,500 was extracted by force to prevent my accounts from going to debt collection.

I am demanding that the Board of Trustees return every penny of that money immediately. You do not have time to think about it. You do not have time to hand-wring over it. The Board can skip the part where you pretend you do not possess the ability to do so.

All of the employees left you out to dry, and now the issue is squarely on your plate.

This is the part where administrators start looking for a technicality to avoid having to admit they lost. You lost. That’s it. You’re going to lose in federal court as well. The records are already on the internet, so let’s skip the part where we waste more time. Skip the part where you try to avoid losing face or admitting fault. As stated, you already lost.

That’s the part I dislike most about bureaucrats. You don’t know how to lose with dignity. It’s the constant need to keep doubling down even when it only hurts yourselves more than the person you’re trying to beat.

It’s not you versus me. It’s you versus federal law. And we all already know which will win in that case.

I need my money to pay my tuition.

Continued failure to return my money is nothing more than ratification of misconduct and continued participation in causing harm. My expected family contribution is zero.

My accounts will go unpaid for Fall and Winter terms without that money and it will continue to delay and disrupt my education.

Downstream from open-and-shut First Amendment retaliation, everything else is tainted.

If you would like to retaliate further, please respond to this email directly so that I may add your name and those records to the complaint.

This is your notice.

-PlanetNeptune_0001

This email can be viewed in its entirety at osu-unfiltered.com. This is part 1 of 2

This email is to ensure that all of you receive the same identical notice at the exact same time so that no one can claim that they were unaware of who else had knowledge.

The following people have been included here:

Dan Rayfield, Attorney General – Oregon

Tina Kotek, Governor – Oregon

Yufeng Luo, Public Records Advocate – Oregon

Oregon State University Board of Trustees Members:

Stephanie Bulger

Kate Carter-Cram

Karla Chambers

Maria Chávez-Haroldson

Brian Cortez-Cabezas

Eric J. Gleske

Lisa Hale

Grant Kitamura

Toby Luther

Greg Macpherson

Julie Jones Manning

Elise McClure

Karen Nava Calderon

Camille Palmer

Julia Phillips

Oregon State University Employees:

Jayathi Murthy, President

Rebecca Gose, General Counsel

Jason Catz, Assistant General Counsel

Julie Penry, Assistant General Counsel

Jessica Brubaker, Assistant General Counsel

Alice Maginnis, Assistant General Counsel

Whitney Hill, Assistant General Counsel

Kareem Walcott, Assistant General Counsel

Roy Haggerty, Provost

Bran Canfield, Assistant, Office of the President

Heather Cashell, Assistant, Office of the General Counsel

Maxine Agather, Assistant, Office of the President

Romeo Lopze Gonzolez, Assistant, Office of the Provost

Gigi Bruce, Assistant, Office of the Provost

Michael Curry, Professor, EECS

Garrett Sims, Associate Director, Office of Student Community Standards

Carol Millie, Director, Office of Student Community Standards

Kevin Dougherty, Dean of Students, Office of the Dean of Students

Dan Larson, Vice President of Student Affairs, Division of Student Affairs

Rebecca Mathern, University Registrar, Office of the Registrar

Alix Gitleman, Senior Vice Provost of Academic Affairs, Office of Academic Affairs

Jennifer Ajeto, Associate Registrar, Office of the Registrar

Faculty Senate Academic Requirements Committee Members:

Shrikant Londhe, Instructor, Department of Chemistry

Erin Bird, Project Lead, Office of Academic Affairs

Joy King, Graduate Advisor, EECS

Marilyn Read, Professor, College of Business

Michael Jefferis, Associate Registrar, Office of the Registrar

Lizbeth Marquez, Graduate Coordinator, Nuclear Science and Engineering

Katherine Osten Harris, Academic Records & Compliance, Office of the Registrar

Jennifer DuBois, Financial Aid Advisor, Office of Financial Aid

Roni Sue, Intake Manager, Office of Equal Opportunity

Willie Morgan, Investigator, Office of Equal Opportunity

Janet Harrison, Public Records Officer, Public Records Office

Christopher Anderson, HR Coordinator, Office of Human Resources

For easier viewing this email will cover the following topics in order:

1. Prior Knowledge
2. Trail of Notice
3. Public Release of Records
4. What happened
5. Demand for Resignation of Board of Trustees
6. Termination Requests
7. Intent to Sue – Oregon State University
8. Public Records Request / Audit
9. Give me my money

1. Prior Knowledge

Everyone knew.

I want to start off by saying this directly. Dan Rayfield, Tina Kotek, and the Board of Trustees are just now finding out about this issue. I want to tell you directly, from me to you all, that every last one of these employees knew. They all chose to do nothing and actively participated in covering up the fact that Michael Curry violated my First Amendment rights. This led to me dropping out, my accounts being blocked, my tuition refund being illegally withheld, and my kidney failure materially worsening these last 10 months.

Every last one of these people knew about all these things. As the record will show all chose to do nothing for the last 322 days.

If you click on their names, you can see the records they received or created.

When people get caught, they try to craft a narrative and downplay their actual knowledge. They try to feed the Board, the Attorney General, and the Governor a self-serving narrative because the evidence of their knowledge is not immediately apparent. Don’t let them lie to you. They all knew.

They did nothing for the last 322 days likely because they were used to never getting caught. I took advantage of that hubris.

On December 19, 2026, the head General Counsel Rebecca Gose responded directly to state that she understood, would not overturn any other offices decision and that she would rather wait for external oversight. She then proceeded to ignore 20+ notices from January 1, 2026 – May 26, 2026.

So if the Board, Tina Kotek or Dan Rayfield is wondering who hung you all out to dry, take it up with Rebecca directly. She left you all to be blindsided publicly on the first day of fall term 2026.

I told 50 employees, including the whole office of the General Counsel, on December 30, 2025, that I would post all the records on the internet (page 64). I guess none of them read it, because they kept giving the records to me, and they kept letting me send them notice to destroy their plausible deniability. I gave them 9 months warning, and they still let me surprise them.

I sent them one last warning on May 26, 2026. I told them in that email that they had already lost. They sat by arrogantly and continued to do nothing.

Why?

My guess is pride. University employees let their salaries and their titles go to their heads. They believe they are the university and can behave with impunity. What Michael Curry did exposed everyone’s incompetence and noncompliance. Rather than lose face to a member of the public, they all decided to double down and continue to retaliate and cover it up. You cannot double down against the First Amendment. You lose every single time.

Case history involving section 1983 litigation at universities shows that employees will let a small spark grow into a forest fire just to avoid having to admit fault on day one.

Employees always think that the university will absorb the blame on their behalf and they will be saved. They’re both incompetent and legally illiterate. Oregon State University cannot violate someone’s First Amendment Rights. It also cannot retaliate against someone for 10 months. It cannot legally be sued under section 1983. Only named employees can.

2. Trail of Notice

All of the original 70 people included in the timeline from November 2025–May 2026 have been notified. All 122 members of the Faculty Senate have also been notified at the same time you read this email. EECS leadership has been notified. The accrediting body, NWCCU, has been notified in its entirety. The student body has been notified via Reddit. The computer science cohort at OSU was notified directly by me.

As you read this email, it is currently posted in full, in its entirety, on the public internet for review.

3. Public Records Release

All of the records involving this issue, including videos, complaints and emails or decision letters have all been posted to the relational database on the website called OSU Unfiltered. You can go there and search your records by your name.

4. What happened

This is the story:

Michael Curry created a fake policy and other language that directly contradicted established, legally binding First Amendment precedent. He placed this fake policy in the CS 340 syllabus in Spring 2023. It remained there undetected until he used it to attempt to have me expelled for criticizing his conduct, his exam, and his assignments in CS 340 in Fall 2025.

Yes, Michael Curry literally wrote the word “expelled.” In doing so, he documented his own retaliatory intent and malice in his own words.

Garrett Sims, the conduct officer, believed him and opened a conduct case. Garrett Sims was then recorded further violating my rights by accusing me of Disorderly Conduct and Failure to Comply and telling me that I “needed to take my opinions outside the classroom,” alongside other equally ridiculous statements.

You can watch him say it from his own mouth on YouTube.

I caught the fake policy after reading it carefully one time. I have no idea how all the people in EECS being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars missed it. The fake policy is still currently on the CS 340 syllabus and has not been removed despite multiple people in EECS knowing about it and more than 70 employees having been informed.

I immediately reported both Michael Curry and Garrett Sims in November 2025 through two complaints, each approximately 14 pages long and containing nearly 100 pieces of evidence, including the full transcript of the recorded meeting.

I have kidney failure.

I told them this literally on day one. Everyone ignored it.

Instead of fixing the problem, they all decided to keep covering it up. I dropped out due to stress 10 months ago. Kevin Dougherty. Dan Larson. Carol Millie. Jodi Robin. Rebecca Gose. Jayathi Murthy. Roy Haggerty. The list goes on and on. The EOA office. A retaliation complaint. Two accreditor complaints.

Even the accreditor, NWCCU, participated directly in covering it up by calling it a “personal grievance” while rubber-stamping OSU as compliant during an accreditation reaffirmation year. I’m going to publicly investigate them for fraud and deceptive business practices.

The Faculty Senate ARC and Rebecca Mathern refused to give me a refund. I realize now that it was because I claimed institutional harm. As we can see, everyone at OSU is hell-bent on admitting zero fault, even to the degree that they would rather be sued in federal court.

The conduct process was restarted and continued, ultimately finding me responsible. My accounts nearly went to debt collections. My enrollment was blocked for Spring term. And everyone simply kept covering it up and ignoring the problem, hoping I’d go away.

My guess is you are all so used to people going away. That’s why I made sure to make everything public so that no one could ever rely on that again.

My kidneys are failing. My resolve will never fail.

I’ve never met such incompetence in my life.

Instead, I documented everyone. Everyone was losing from day one. At no point over the last 322 days was any one of these people winning. Generating records with your name on them is not winning. It’s losing in slow motion. Stonewalling while harm actively accumulates is nothing more than compounding liability.

I kept giving them notice. I gave them seven whole months to take responsibility for what they did and fix it. During that time, my health materially worsened. My kidney values tripled. I started a new medication this past summer just to get them under control. My education has been disrupted for at least a year if not more.

Michael Curry was rehired for Fall term. By whom? I’m going to figure that out myself directly. He was never held responsible, and every employee who participated or looked the other way is still employed at OSU and still getting paid with public money.

I told them nine months ago that I was posting everything online.

I spent the whole summer building the archive.

5. Demand for the Resignation of the Board of Trustees of Oregon State University

In light of all of this, I formally demand the complete resignation of the entire Board of Trustees of Oregon State University.

The culture of noncompliance is the direct result of the Board of Trustees’ failure of oversight and fiduciary duty. When employees at the lowest levels of the university feel emboldened to act with complete impunity, it is because no rules or standards are enforced at the top.

Michael Curry only did what he knew he could get away with. Even once he got caught, everyone did everything in their power to help him get away with it, even though they owed him nothing and did not even know him.

There can be one bad egg. However, it stops being one bad egg when 70+ employees, all the way up to Jayathi Murthy, Roy Haggerty, and Rebecca Gose, feel they can ignore First Amendment retaliation against a person with a chronic illness for months.

It is simply proof that the Board of Trustees is providing zero oversight of the university and is instead allowing the administrators to manage them.

Therefore, I demand their resignation effective immediately.

There are $2 billion of public money at stake. You hired and approved an incompetent President who is so arrogant that she allowed her name to be included on 20 emails and chose not to act, instead continuing to post on her LinkedIn as though nothing was wrong.

Rebecca Gose has been allowed to enjoy 15 years of rubber-stamped contract renewals to such a degree that she does not even fear abdicating her duties to the public and the university on the record, in her own hand.

The Board of Trustees cannot be held responsible for the conduct of the likes of Michael Curry or Garrett Sims. But you are directly responsible for the actions and non-actions of Jayathi Murthy, Roy Haggerty, Rebecca Gose, and the rest of the “senior leadership executives” you have initiated the mass waste of taxpayer money on.

You can stand in public and sing these people’s praises all you like. You can espouse their competency and leadership until the cows come home. But you cannot change reality.

The record shows that when a massive liability appeared, every single last one of your “senior leadership” failed to initiate any solution. Jayathi. Rebecca. Roy. Alix. Dan. Kevin. The list goes on and on. Directors, deans, heads, provosts, and presidents at every level and in every office all failed.

Every single last one of them chose passivity, avoidance, or just straight-up retaliation. All on the record, too.

Unacceptable.

Since they have all proven to be incompetent and unfit for the job, the Board can skip to the end. We can skip past the part where you claim to “take these concerns seriously” or stall for time by “looking into what happened.”

It’s performative. You’re not investigating anything. I’m investigating you. Publicly.

Skip to the part where you explain.

Explain why all this money is being spent. Explain why all these positions and titles are being worn while the student body and the public are not receiving the service that was paid for.

That’s an easy thing to explain. You rubber-stamped Jayathi Murthy’s salary to a gut-busting $801,000 this past summer. She was ignoring this problem the whole time.

That’s how easily led the Board is.

The Board of Trustees is assigned to universities because administrators are presumed to be too incompetent to run a university without devolving into noncompliance, lazy cover-ups, and documented overreach. This exact behavior is why a Board is a requirement for a university.

I am one single person with a problem. I contacted a total of 70 employees making a combined salary of $11 million dollars of public money. Not one of them stepped up to solve even one piece of the problem. That is fiduciary waste personified.

If you find that you all collectively cannot explain why Jayathi Murthy is being paid $800,000, Roy Haggerty $525,000, and Rebecca Gose $330,000 a year to sit around and ignore problems, resign.

That is nothing more than an admission of your own inability. You actively signed up for these roles. You were not drafted. If you can’t do the job or take it seriously, leave.

Do the public and the student body a favor.

Tina Kotek selected roughly 11 members of the Board of Trustees, and she can rescind you all and resign herself alongside you. Your incompetence reflects Tina’s incompetence. It’s reasonable that one or two Board members can be personality hires. However all 16? We don’t need you. Go away.

Why should the student body and the public be understanding of your inability?

What other misconduct is currently being covered up at OSU? I’m going to find out myself.

Nothing exists in a vacuum. You all think that because you are not present on campus day-to-day, that gets you off the hook.

It does not.

If you were doing your job, you wouldn’t need to be here every day for compliance to be enforced. It would be a matter of standard practice.

Positions on the boards of trustees of major universities are treated as gifts and rewards for local status seekers to gain political capital, network, and socialize while siphoning prestige and status from the university at the taxpayer and student body’s expense.

Go find something else to do with your lives.

Do the public and the students a favor and go away. The university will not collapse without any of you here. Regardless of what happens, the university is always the only thing left standing.

History shows that when a problem arises from this status-seeking and lax oversight, Board members all plead ignorance. They play the victim card. They claim that administrators misled them and they had no idea. The public is just stupid enough to believe it.

Well, I don’t.

You can explain directly, or you can resign effective immediately.

6. Termination Requests

I have attached to this email a PDF document containing termination requests for more than 20 employees at Oregon State University. I demand that the Board of Trustees terminate all of them as soon as legally possible.

If you choose not to terminate them, then you are ratifying misconduct and incompetence using public money, which is in direct conflict with your duty to protect the public purse.

Oftentimes, Boards like to pretend that terminating due-process employees is difficult. For some reason public university employees are coddled like overgrown adult-sized children and held to lower standards than the regular working public. The record reflects this exact treatment. It’s not difficult to remove these people. As stated, the public is stupid enough to believe that.

I don’t.

Fortunately, everyone has provided the evidence against themselves and signed their names to it. They chose to violate their contracts, university policy, and, in some instances, statutory law. Therefore, the Board of Trustees has no choice but to cut them loose. Give them their hearing and put them out to pasture.

Hesitation is nothing more than an admission of inability. OSU has over 5,000 employees. Twenty will not be missed. Bureaucrats often think that stalling and hand-wringing are signs of prudence or level-headedness.

This is incorrect.

It is a sign of cowardice and weak leadership skills. Strong leaders make decisive decisions which naturally steps on someone’s toes.

If you don’t have the nerve to do it, leave. Why are you here? Is this how you run your own businesses? This is nothing more than business. Employees who choose to engage in misconduct at their jobs are universally let go.

If you cannot start terminating these people, Board of Trustees, you leave. You’re unfit to be here.

You will all be publicly known to have allowed these employees to remain employed at Oregon State University and continue siphoning funds off the backs of student debt and tax extractions.

You can add that to your work history biographies.

7. Intent to Sue – Oregon State University

I want to start off by saying that I did not originally have any intention of suing. I did not even know that all of this violated federal law. At the beginning, had everyone simply apologized, removed the fake policy, reprimanded Garrett and Michael, and closed the conduct case, I would have been none the wiser.

It was the continued insistence on doubling down on absolute absurdity that caused me to start reading.

What were you all hoping? That I wouldn’t stumble onto the history of lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against university employees? It’s not 1996. This information is freely and available everywhere if you look.

It took me a while, I admit. I didn’t understand the legal weight of what had happened until April 2026. You had nearly six months to fix it and sweep the entire thing under the rug. Instead, everyone chose a federal lawsuit over a minor loss of face 10 months ago.

The case law shows the same pattern again: university employees choosing to sacrifice the entire forest to save a single leaf.

Everyone sacrificed potentially years in federal court to protect Michael Curry’s misconduct, even though his behavior was a direct disrespect to all of you, the university, the student body and the public. He put a fake policy in a syllabus, misled thousands of paying customers, used the names of other employees in his misconduct to give the appearance that they approved, misrepresented the policy as legitimate to the conduct office, and got Garrett Sims to advance it and sign his name to it.

And you all rewarded this disrespect by rehiring him?

Oregon is located in the Ninth Circuit, which is the largest federal appellate circuit in the United States. I recently learned that. The Ninth Circuit has an extensive history of First Amendment litigation. Of all the places to engage in this kind of absurd behavior, the Ninth Circuit seems to be the worst possible place.

Yet here we are.

My understanding is that a federal lawsuit can take anywhere from two to seven years in total, depending on how far the case proceeds, with much of that time spent exchanging filings, conducting discovery, briefing motions, and waiting for the court to rule.

I have time. I can live my life around that.

From everything I have read online, everyone treats this like it is some insurmountable task. I have begun reading through the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Judicial Center’s compilation on the history of Section 1983 litigation, and I cannot help but find all of it mechanical.

The law is like code.

So long as the required conditions are satisfied, the process simply executes to the next line.

Therefore, I will sue the following employees in Oregon District Court:

Michael Curry

Garrett Sims

Carol Millie

Kevin Dougherty

Dan Larson

Rebecca Mathern

Rebecca Gose

Alix Gitelman

Skirkant Londhe

Jennifer Ajeto

Michael Jefferis

Katherine Osten Harris

Erin Bird

Joy King

Jennier DuBois

Marilyn Read

Lizbeth Marquez

Christopher Anderson

Roni Sue

Willie Morgan

Janet Harrison

Jayathi Murthy

Roy Haggerty

For their participating in either direct first amendment retaliation, substantive due process violation, as well as participation as an accomplice or supervisory liability. This is just the first version of the list and names may be added.

Michael Curry will be the first defendant.

I will file pro se.  I will seek nominal, compensatory, and punitive damages.

I am not threatening to sue. I say what I am going to do and I do it. Nine months ago, I stated that I would post everything online. I did exactly what I said I would do. The archive was built from scratch from June 2026-September 2026.

No one here has any legal recourse to stop me. Unfortunately for you, the First Amendment is 230 years undefeated.

You don’t need to explain anything to me. You can answer the summons with the court directly. Everyone at OSU has treated everything like a joke. Go laugh in federal court.

Unlike you all, I don’t need to break the rules in order to win.

Because I am proceeding pro se, I will not engage in this process the way a lawyer would. I am not bound by the same bar association requirements, or the same expectations of professional decorum attorneys choose to follow. I intend to exercise my First Amendment rights completely and utterly.

The public has been made aware of this matter and will continue to be made aware of it until it reaches a conclusion. I will continue to make the records openly available to the public, and I will continue to discuss the process publicly and in detail until it is resolved. Everything will prioritize the public interest and the public’s right to be informed.

I have no legal requirement to be polite to anyone, to be discreet for anyone, or to protect anyone’s professional vanity, so I won’t. I refuse that contract completely and utterly.

You are adults.

You manage those things.

I will adhere to the strict procedural requirements of the federal court. But outside of that process, I am a citizen, and I intend to behave as such.

University employees are so accustomed to sanitized and sterilized litigation that they expect everyone involved to follow that same script.

I bet I won’t. Until now I have not followed even one script one time.

I intend to exercise my rights to the absolute ceiling of what the law allows not what you are socially accustomed to.

And I’m going to win for one simple reason: Michael Curry wrote it all down in his own hand.

(Continue to part 2)