Re: Shannon Miller out at UMD?
Some of this gets a little like the OJ trial, where if you can show that an investigating officer used a racial slur a few years ago, it can deflect attention from all of the physical evidence that tied the accused to the murder of his estranged wife. If somebody at UMD was a bigot and harassed Miller before the Chancellor got his job, then that means that her non-renewal was motivated by homophobia. Sorry, but if this is supposed to be a mathematical proof, I think a few steps have been skipped.
The difference here is that Miller would likely be suing the institution of UMD either instead of, or in addition to, any specific individuals. In that, establishing a pattern that goes back years would be very helpful, even if it involves higher ups that are no longer there.
That said, in the O.J. case, the past comments didn't really distract from the physical evidence (at least not in court; they may have in public opinion); it was meant to establish a context for it. The prosecution had two major problems. The first was that all of that physical evidence was collected in a way that was, at best, shoddy and at worst also involved several 4th Amendment violations. The past comments were an attempt to establish a motive for why the police were so aggressive in their pursuit.
In this sense, there is some similarity to Miller's case. One problem she's going to have is that, as we've all discussed, there were some perfectly valid reasons why she was terminated even if the administration didn't list them (or all of them) in their initial statements. So she's not going to be able to rely on just the circumstances of her firing. She's going to have to establish a lengthy pattern of behavior to give context to recent events in order to win, unless someone in the UMD administration was stupid enough to write an email or memo saying that they were getting rid of her for illegal reasons. I won't offer an opinion on the likelihood that they were that stupid.
The other problem in the O.J. case was that the prosecution was wildly incompetent. That manifested itself in lots of small ways and one catastrophic one. The jury had to watch that clown show in operation day after day and it made them really skeptical of the prosecution's case. So, while from the outside it seems pretty clear that O.J. did it (and I agree with that) the view inside the courtroom was rather different than the popular perception.
