INVESTIGATION: Claremont McKenna Violated Faculty Handbook in Professor’s Grievance Case

CMC professor Christopher Nadon.

Claremont McKenna College (CMC) professor Christopher Nadon alleged in 2022 that CMC Dean of Faculty Heather Antecol had sought to ban him from teaching introductory courses because of his classroom speech. Though his introductory courses were later restored, he filed an internal grievance against the college to protest their attempted punishment. Throughout the grievance and appeal processes, the Independent found serious errors in the college’s handling of his case, including a violation of California employment law, a willful breach of the Faculty Handbook’s written procedure, the Grievance Committee relying on false evidence in reaching its decision, and CMC president Hiram Chodosh attempting to circumvent procedure to allow a close ally to decide Nadon’s appeal. The following article draws on dozens of internal documents and email correspondences pertaining to Nadon’s grievance process that were received by the Independent.

Part One: “Serious Concerns”

On October 14, 2021, Professor Nadon received an email from Associate Dean of Faculty Ellen Ketels (née Rentz) informing him of “serious concerns about one of [his] courses.” 

The complaint emerged from a discussion about the censorship of great books in American society led by Professor Nadon in his Introduction to Political Philosophy (Gov 80) course earlier that semester. Nadon mentioned that the novel Huckleberry Finn had been banned from some libraries and even reprinted without the n-word, speaking the n-word aloud in the process. 

CMC Dean of Faculty Heather Antecol reportedly notified Nadon that the origin of Ketels’ inquiry was a “verbal complaint to [Nyree Gray,] the Associate Vice President for Diversity & Inclusion,” and that the student “had not, and did not, intend to file a complaint against him.” In addition, Antecol wrote at the time that “the Dean of the Faculty's Office has not initiated any form of disciplinary review related to the student's report.” 

Instead, Ketels’ message to Nadon was reportedly intended to “Relay the reported concerns… Confirm whether the reported concerns were accurate… [and] Confirm whether you had any additional context or background that you wanted to provide regarding the reported concerns, including to discuss your pedagogical rationale and the consideration you gave to the student learning experience in that process (for example, why it was important to use the n* expressly as contrasted with simply saying the ‘n-word’).”

As previously reported by the Independent, Nadon claimed this incident led to Antecol seeking to ban him from teaching any Gov 80 or Freshman Humanities Seminar (FHS) classes for the foreseeable future. In February 2022, Nadon was instead asked by Minxin Pei, the outgoing chair of the government department, and Jon Shields, the incoming chair, to teach an additional upper level political philosophy course, which other political philosophy professors agreed was not necessary. In Nadon’s stead, a visiting professor would teach his previously held Gov 80 course, and another CMC professor would teach his FHS course. 

According to Nadon, when he raised his removal from teaching Gov 80 with Shields, Shields told him that the decision to remove him came from “the Dean [of Faculty Heather Antecol].” In an email to Nadon, CMC Professor Mark Blitz confirmed this, noting that Shields had told him separately “that the administration did not want [Nadon] to teach introductory courses.” 

Shields was not happy with this arrangement either. In a conversation between Shields and CMC professor emeritus James Nichols, Shields apparently agreed that Professor Nadon was being treated by Antecol “without any of the due process spelled out in the Faculty Handbook.” Shields had reportedly “tried to persuade the dean, but without being able to budge her.” 

At the time, Nadon told the Independent that he considered Antecol’s actions a violation of the CMC Faculty Handbook’s statement on academic freedom. To seek redress, on July 13, 2022, Nadon began the informal oral grievance process by emailing Antecol with his complaints. On July 31, Shields asked Nadon to teach a section of Gov 80. 

Asked for comment, Dean Antecol referred the Independent to CMC spokesperson Helena Paulin, who noted that “we have nothing more to add to this report on this matter.” The linked statement denies any relation between the complaint and Nadon’s reinstatement, instead claiming that Nadon was reassigned a Gov 80 section due to low enrollment in one of his upper-level political philosophy courses. 

On August 10, 2022, Nadon followed up with an informal written grievance, the next available option in the grievance procedures. He accused Dean Antecol of banning him from teaching Gov 80 and FHS courses “without even the semblance of due process.” He continued that regardless of whether the bans on FHS and Gov 80 are lifted permanently, “the damage caused by her defamation has already been done. Nor has she undertaken any action to remediate the chilling effects of her actions on classroom free speech in discussions in my courses going forward.” He also noted that he had still not been allowed to view the student complaints. As he saw it, the actions undertaken by Dean Antecol violated several clauses of the Faculty Handbook, and thereby “violate[d] [his] academic freedom and academic due process.” 

As remedies for Antecol’s alleged wrongdoing, Nadon requested a full reinstatement to the Government Department’s faculty roster for teaching FHS and Gov 80, a written, public apology from Antecol, and a written statement to be sent to the CMC faculty affirming that “no further retaliation” would be taken against Nadon or other faculty members for “reading aloud from assigned text or for making arguments on all sides of the issues raised by the texts assigned for [their] classes.” 

Part Two: National Attention

On August 22, 2022, Nadon took his concerns to the national press. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Nadon lamented that CMC, a college supposedly committed to freedom of speech, was unfairly punishing him for teaching as he saw fit. “Students, already fearful to speak their minds, become even more so when they see that certain peers can veto the content of courses and conduct of teachers arbitrarily,” he wrote.  “The liberating power of books, particularly those written in times and places distant from ours, is diminished when they are expurgated and bowdlerized.”

A few days later, CMC president Hiram Chodosh responded in another Wall Street Journal article. Chodosh denied that Nadon faced any adverse action due to his classroom speech, and claimed that his reassignment from Gov 80 was instead because of “low enrollment in his electives… His upper-level elective fall course resulted in no students enrolled, and there is only one student enrolled in his major-required [Gov 80] course this fall.” 

However, according to emails in April 2022 between Nadon and the CMC registrar, Nadon’s upper-level fall course already had four students enrolled in it and was expected to receive more students from Claremont Graduate University. In addition, his Gov 80 course had not been listed on the class registration portal until late summer, months after nearly all CMC students had finalized their course schedules. 

In a subsequent letter to the editor, Nadon responded to Chodosh’s article, proposing a new headline: “College President Lauds Free Speech and Academic Due Process While Broadcasting to the National Media Unsubstantiated, Uninvestigated, Anonymous Student Allegations About a Faculty Member Whose Speech He Claims to Protect.”

Part Three: Statutory Deadlines

At this point, Nadon had still not been provided with the actual complaints made against him despite numerous requests to see them. In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, Chodosh claimed that CMC had “received expressions of concern from students in three separate, recent classes.”

On August 16, 2022, Nadon signed a waiver allowing CMC to send all documents pertaining to his case to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a free speech watchdog group Nadon had taken his concerns to. As part of this waiver, Nadon also requested that they send him “(1) a complete copy of any files kept in [his] name in any and all Institution or District offices; (2) any emails, notes, memoranda, video, audio, or other material maintained by any school employee in which [he is] personally identifiable; and (3) any and all phone, medical or other records in which [he is] personally identifiable.” By California law, CMC was required to send these documents within 30 days of his request. 

According to documents in Nadon’s appeal, a point of contention between the two parties is the existence of written student complaints. As previously mentioned, Antecol contends that at least one of the students’ complaints was only verbal. Nonetheless, Nadon repeatedly argues that he should be able to confirm the student complaints’ veracity in writing to make sure any action taken by the college is not based on an “anonymous unsubstantiated complaint of a student.” 

Nadon followed up his request with a message to President Chodosh in early September, asking Chodosh for “evidence of these three separate complaints.” Chodosh responded that Nadon had already been provided with the documentation as well as “an accurate description of student feedback from the DOF (Dean of Faculty) office.” When asked what this referred to, President Chodosh did not respond to a request for comment.

By the September 16 deadline, CMC failed to send Nadon the required documents. 

On September 22, Nadon again emailed Antecol to request the documents. Later that day, Marcie Gardner, the college’s general counsel, responded by saying “the college will be happy to talk with you about issues raised by students after the grievance you filed against Dean Antecol has concluded.” 

Two days later, Nadon responded, reminding them of the California statute and noting that “the college is again in violation of a clear deadline.” He requested that the documents be provided to him immediately. Gardner responded by saying that she would “obtain an update on their progress on Monday, as the College intends to provide the legally-required documentation.” 

The following Wednesday—now twelve days after the deadline—Nadon again requested the documents, having received no update. That Friday, Gardner said he would “be receiving the documents from HR no later than Monday.” She also copied Nyree Gray, CMC’s Vice President for HR and the original recipient of the student complaint, on the email. 

On Tuesday, Nadon once again wrote to complain that he had “still not received the legally required documents.” Gardner, responding nearly a month after the legal deadline, claimed that as far as she knew HR had provided him documents on Friday, although she noted that there were still some outstanding. 

According to Nadon, the documents finally shared by the college were incomplete. He later wrote that the college failed to include “[Chodosh’s] statement to the press of August 22, 2022,” and that “the files conveyed to me contain no information about two of the three alleged student complaints,” and only “at most an incomplete and I believe inaccurate account” of the one complaint provided.

Part Four - A Question of Timing

On October 10, 2022, Nadon went forward with a formal grievance complaint against Antecol. The formal complaint followed closely to the informal complaint, with the additional proposed remedy that Antecol should “affirm that principles of academic freedom protect faculty members’ rights to make their own decisions on [pedagogical] matters.” 

According to the 2022-2023 Faculty Handbook, the formal grievance process should have continued as follows: Because the DOF had a conflict of interest, a faculty designee acceptable to both the Antecol and Nadon would be selected. Next, Nadon would submit his formal written complaint to the DOF’s designee, which would then be sent to the Grievance Committee. The Grievance Committee would be made up of five impartial faculty members and two alternates. 

Within 14 days of the complaint’s submission, the Committee would convene to discuss whether or not the complaint was “frivolous.” If at least two members of the Committee considered the complaint not to be frivolous, the procedure states that “the Committee shall grant a hearing to the Complainant.” If the Committee found the complaint frivolous, Nadon would be informed of their reasoning and would be able to appeal the decision to the President. 

Importantly, per the Faculty Handbook, it is only during the hearing that the grievance procedure allows the Respondent, Antecol, to respond to the complaint. Additionally, during the hearing process, Nadon and the DOF would be allowed to question each other. 

Following the hearing, the Committee would submit their decision to the DOF's designee, who would then make a final decision about any penalties or remedies. Following this decision, both Antecol and Nadon would be able to file an appeal to the President.

Several days after the submission of Nadon’s formal grievance, Professor Ron Riggio, Antecol’s designee to represent the Dean of Faculty’s office, informed Nadon that Antecol was requesting to “be allowed to respond in writing to [Nadon’s] most recent grievance statement.” However, according to the Faculty Handbook, it is only after the Grievance Committee agrees to grant a hearing that Dean Antecol should have been allowed to respond to any accusations made against her in the formal grievance. 

Nadon promptly refused her request, saying, “I see no reason to depart from the procedures in the CMC Faculty Handbook.” 

Disregarding Nadon’s refusal, the chair of the Grievance Committee, CMC Professor Anna Wenzel, opted to allow Antecol to submit a written response, claiming that “the guidelines do not prevent either you or Heather from submitting additional information.” The Faculty Handbook makes no mention of the Respondent (Antecol) being allowed to make statements and provide supplemental information beyond any submissions related to the informal grievance to the Grievance Committee until after the hearing is granted. 

Nevertheless, in Antecol’s statement to the Grievance Committee, she claims that “nowhere in [Nadon’s] lengthy formal grievance does he supply a single piece of direct evidence of such a ban [on teaching introductory courses].” She describes all of the evidence in Nadon’s complaint as “hearsay,” since “all of it comes via Professor Shields.”

On October 26, 2022, the Grievance Committee found Nadon’s complaint to be “frivolous.” 

Their decision, however, is in recognized violation of the protocols dictated by the Faculty Handbook. In the introduction to their decision, the Committee members explicitly state that “Because the 4.4 grievance procedure fails to provide an opportunity for a respondent to submit a response to the complaint…the [Grievance Committee] notified Dean Antecol that she could submit a response.” 

CMC government professor Charles Kesler speculated to the Independent about the motives for the break with procedure: “The details are confusing, but I would say that the administration is acting like they have something to hide.” 

The decision goes on to quote Antecol’s response, saying that “in a 7/29/22 email from Dean Antecol to [outgoing Government department chair Minxin Pei]… Dean Antecol asked the departmental chairs how the ‘department should proceed at this point,’ regarding teaching assignments. Government Department Chair Prof. Shields responds back… that Prof. Nadon could offer Gov80.” They argue that this email refutes Nadon’s claim that he was ever banned from teaching his courses. However, this email is consistent with Nadon’s complaint, which specifically mentions this incident as suspicious given that it occurred shortly after his first informal grievance was submitted, and after Shields learned that Nadon would be taking his complaints public. 

Regarding the conversation in which Shields apparently told Nadon that his removal from Gov 80 was “coming from the dean,” the Grievance Committee dismissed it as “hearsay.” This is despite the fact that Nadon reportedly wrote down notes from his conversation with Shields and immediately read them back to confirm their accuracy at the end of their meeting. Shields declined to comment for this article. 

The Committee similarly dismissed email correspondence between Nadon and professors Blitz and Nichols, who both noted that Shields had told them that Antecol did not want Nadon teaching introductory courses. 

The Grievance Committee also claimed that Nadon’s assertion that he was banned from teaching FHS was false because he was “slated to teach two sections of FHS 010 Revolutions and Their Legacies in the spring semester of 2023.” However, according to Nadon, who cites the spring 2023 schedule circulated to the faculty by the Registrar, he was never scheduled to teach those classes. In fact, the only two sections of Revolutions and Their Legacies offered were taught by Professor Daniel Livesay. As Nadon later wrote, “I have never taught this class, the Curriculum Committee has never approved my teaching of this class, and I have never requested to teach this class.” All of the members of the Grievance Committee either did not respond to a request for comment or could not recall why they made this claim. 

Sections of FHS listed on the CMC registration portal.

The Grievance Committee also argued that the Dean of Faculty’s “inquiries” into Nadon’s pedagogical approach were valid given that Ketels’ initial messages to Nadon were “not punitive in nature,” and only sought to “relay the reported concerns” and “confirm whether the reported concerns were accurate.” 

With respect to Nadon’s claim that Antecol attempted to infringe on his academic freedom of speech, the Committee simply stated that they “found no evidence of Dean Antecol attempting to infringe upon Prof. Nadon's academic freedom of speech.”

Part Five: “Hearsay, Guesswork, Speculation, and Surmise”

Nadon promptly appealed the decision to President Chodosh. 

According to the Faculty Handbook, “in cases where the President has a conflict of interest that is apparent prior to the beginning of the hearing process, the DOF shall perform the functions assigned herein to the President, unless the DOF also has a conflict of interest. If the DOF has a conflict of interest, the choice of the President's designee shall be made by the President from the panel of retired judges.” 

As President Chodosh and Nadon had sparred in the press before any formal complaint was even submitted, Chodosh clearly had a conflict of interest in Nadon’s case. Similarly, as the complaint was made against Dean Antecol, she too had a clear conflict of interest. According to the Faculty Handbook, Chodosh should have designated a retired judge to adjudicate Nadon’s appeal.

Instead, President Chodosh chose David Mgrublian, then the Chairman of the CMC Board of Trustees. Professor Kesler told the Independent that Mgrublian was likely not an impartial selection: “I was surprised that President Chodosh would thrust David Mgrublian into such an awkward position. One could surely presume that the longtime chairman of the Board of Trustees and the president of the college alongside whom he served would have quite a close working relationship. One could also presume that the chairman of the board of trustees has a strong interest in avoiding negative press attention for the college.” 

When Nadon complained to President Chodosh about his departure from the Faculty Handbook’s explicit procedure, Chodosh claimed that “the panel of retired judges used in Conduct Board hearings' is inoperable, as it is impossible to perform. No such panel exists.” He goes on to claim that procedures that “cannot possibly be performed…cannot be binding just because the word ‘shall’ is included in the language.” 

As Nadon then pointed out in a complaint to Mgrublian, “of course, retired judges still exist…indeed, what is a ‘panel of retired judges’ other than a simple list of judges who, presumably, live in Southern California and are willing to serve.” 

Nadon also argued that the Grievance Committee abused their authority by actually deciding the ultimate merits of the case and not simply whether it was “frivolous” or not. “This is an obvious abuse of authority,” he wrote. “As contemplated by CMC's rules, the purpose of this early meeting of the [Grievance Committee] is simply to determine whether the complaint filed by the faculty member is frivolous -- not to determine the ultimate merits of the case based exclusively on written submissions.” 

Following Nadon’s email, Malcolm Graham, a retired judge working for the arbitration company JAMS, was appointed by CMC to serve as the appellate authority. On December 16, 2022, over a year after Nadon’s prolonged fight with the administration began, Graham delivered his decision on Nadon’s appeal: it was denied. 

In his decision, Graham repeats Dean Antecol’s assertion that the majority of Nadon’s case rested on hearsay and was therefore unreliable. Graham further argues that “when the foundation of the grievance, like that of Complainant, is based upon hearsay, surmise, and speculation, such a grievance may properly be determined by the [Grievance Committee] to be frivolous.” 

In addition, Graham found “no abuse of procedural authority by the [Grievance Committee] in granting Respondent’s request that she be allowed to submit an additional written response.” In the very next sentence, however, Graham admits that “the formal grievance policy made no allowance for such a reply,” but contends that “it was appropriate for them to allow [Antecol’s] request in order to allow the [Grievance Committee] to base their findings on all of the relevant information on the matter.” 

Later in his decision, while arguing against Nadon’s charge that Antecol had banned him from teaching introductory courses, Graham relies extensively on Antecol's response.

Shockingly, Graham also did not “find any merit to Complainant's argument that the [Grievance Committee]’s findings should be set aside because the [Grievance Committee] relied on ‘falsehoods’ about his teaching assignments.” He then admits that “while the [Grievance Committee] erred in citing the [FHS course Nadon was not assigned to teach], the issue before them was whether [Antecol] banned him from teaching Gov.80 and the FHS courses. And, on the central issue in the dispute, the [Grievance Committee]'s findings that he was not banned from teaching those courses was [sic] bases [sic] upon substantial evidence.”

Graham did not respond to a request for comment. 

When asked for comment on the proceedings, Nadon said: “Concerning administration's violations of the CMC Handbook protections for faculty, I can only quote a proverbial Russian saying that President Chodosh seems not to have come across in the formative years he spent in the USSR: ‘We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, they of course know that we certainly know they know we know they are lying too as well, but they are still lying.’” 

Part Six: Procedural Postscript

On February 9, 2024, over a year after Nadon’s appeal was denied, CMC professors convened for a regularly scheduled faculty meeting. On the agenda were a series of proposals by Professor Andrew Busch, then the chair of the college’s administration committee. 

Busch proposed significant changes to the grievance procedures, many of which were directly related to contested issues in Nadon’s case. Most significantly, the new draft allowed the Respondent to a formal grievance to submit a “written response to the Complainant” before the grievance committee meets to consider whether to grant a live hearing. Under this policy, Antecol’s response to Nadon’s complaint would have been permitted. 

In addition, Busch proposed that the grievance committee’s consideration of the complaint be split into two stages. A newly created “review panel” would exist to decide whether a complaint was “frivolous” or not, and if necessary, a separate “hearing panel” would administer the live hearing and recommend penalties and remedies. Nadon had argued in his appeal that the grievance committee exceeded the scope of its mandate—deciding the ultimate merits of the case rather than simply deciding whether or not his complaint was frivolous—when it met to consider his case. 

Busch’s draft also contained a larger definition of what constitutes a “frivolous” complaint. Where previously the procedure used the word in isolation, the new proposal elaborated: “In evaluating whether a complaint is frivolous, legal standards of proof are not applicable to this determination. Rather, Review Panel members are encouraged to use their common sense and rely on common usages of the words ‘implausible,’ ‘insignificant,’ and ‘insubstantial.’” 

Asked if Nadon’s case was the impetus for the changes, Busch did not respond to a request for comment. 

Reflecting on the case, several CMC professors reported being shaken by the college’s disregard for the Faculty Handbook. Professor Robert von Hallberg told the Independent, “Aside from concern for Chris Nadon as a colleague, and many colleagues share that concern, I worry about the efficacy of the procedures of the Faculty Handbook in protecting faculty needs concerning free speech and academic standards. The implementation of those procedures in the Nadon and the Ascher cases makes one see that strict adherence to stated policies and procedures is necessary. The honor of the college depends on it.”

Professor Gary Hamburg reported that Nadon’s case has given him pause in the classroom: “As a faculty member whose work sometimes touches on controversial subjects, I have not felt protected by the college’s practices on academic freedom or free expression. I have therefore opted not to teach at CMC the full range of books and subjects I otherwise would have chosen — books and subjects I taught, without hesitation, at another institution.” 

In a statement to the Independent, Amanda Nordstrom, Program Counsel for the Campus Rights Advocacy department at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), wrote that "FIRE is deeply disappointed to hear that Claremont McKenna College continues to break its own promises to protect academic freedom. Faculty have reported revising their syllabi, dropping materials, and avoiding certain topics—not because of academic considerations, but because they fear institutional consequences for engaging in protected classroom speech. That kind of self-censorship, driven by administrative pressure, undermines the college’s educational mission and violates its own commitments. We call on Claremont McKenna to meaningfully protect faculty academic freedom."

Charlie Hatcher contributed reporting. 

Editor’s Note: An email written by the author was cited as evidence in Professor Nadon’s formal grievance. The author was not aware of its inclusion, and was not involved in the grievance or appeal processes in any other way.