Hi, Adam. I thought I'd catch you up on bad news. I'm also documenting events for the record, so it's longer than it would need to be. Sorry for the length. If you want to get to the bullet, read the next paragraph and then skip to the end, where the word "bombshell" appears.

I heard from the ombudsman on Tuesday, saying that Dr. Lotan would meet with me this morning on the terms I requested. I confirmed again that it was understood that I would be attending, and he said yes. I'd received an acceptance packet in email, and he said that Dr. Lotan said that indicated that I had been accepted. I received no other written confirmation.

Dr. Rasch mediated the meeting. I began, described the events from my perspective thus far. I ended by stressing that I just wanted to become a teacher, that I had no interest in causing trouble, and that I hoped she understood I was excited about attending Stanford.

Dr. Lotan recapped the events thus far. Her recollection was roughly the same as my own, except the aforementioned exit words. She described my exit with great drama. It was odd, as I was watching her *knowing* that it was all a lie. But other than that, her recollection of the event was roughly the same as mine.

She said that after the meeting, "at some point" after the meeting, she sought legal counsel for the purpose of rescinding my admission. She said that "unfortunately", she learned my strengths as a candidate made that impossible. She then thought about it a while, and sent me the letter (the one that had the lie about my exit and the "potential participation" line). The ombudsman asked her to clarify that she sent this after the deadline. She said yes, but that she had been thinking about it and felt it was very important to express this belief. When she got my letter, she acknowledged again that she spoke to a lawyer (acknowledging that I'd gotten a "misdirected" letter").

(This next part will be new to you, but I'd known about it for a few days, because I saw a Stanford IP address on my website.)

On Thursday (a week ago today), she said, she got an "anonymous email" pointing her to my forum, The Perfect World, where I have been discussing this situation seeking advice since March. I often discuss things online, and had no qualms about learning that she had this info. I'm opinionated and ruthless, but not cruel or nasty (behind people's backs). In fact, as I mentioned to you (or to one of the other FIRE people I spoke to), I had archived the conversation to use as evidence, if necessary, because it documented events and my state of mind from March 14th on (the Admit Day meeting).

Dr. Lotan agreed unhesitatingly that I had never said anything rude about her in the conversation--except that I believed she was lying about her comment, but we agreed that was the upshot of our disagreement (that is, one of us was lying). She said, however, that she was very upset by my criticism of the Stanford program and of teachers in general. I was surprised, and said so. What did she think I meant in our earlier conversation? I had said clearly that I didn't agree with progressivism. I had also mentioned my concerns with the student teacher program. Granted, I wasn't as openly critical in our conversations, out of politeness, but I didn't think there was anything there that should have been surprising, given my views. She disagreed. She said she thought it was very different from my application, where I said I wanted to go to a "great school". I said that Stanford was considered the best school in the country for education (and indeed for most things). I wanted to go to a good school.

She then switched tacks to talk about how I would just be very problematic, that her concerns were about the program. She used a particular blogger, [name omitted], as an example. I had expressed a negative view of him in a different thread (the exact term was "Koolaid drinker"). She said that [blogger's] school is a Stanford associate school, and how could she send me to his school, if I had such a negative view of him? I said that first, [blogger] had an equally negative opinion of me, as we'd had several online arguments. I expected him to be professional about me (if he were able to relate the two), and I would be professional about him. She said that didn't matter. I said that I expected we'd both be grownups, if we worked together, but the real question was, did she really believe I was the only person out of 70 students in the program who had opinions about education and teacher bloggers? She didn't answer.

I asked her why my *opinions* seemed to be such a big deal. She stressed again that it wasn't my opinions, but her concerns about interactions. I believe I said that her concern about interactions seemed based on her fear that people would negatively react to my opinions, and (again) reiterated that I would be doing my best to keep my opinions to myself. I was not in school to cause trouble. While I couldn't swear that I wouldn't occasionally make the wrong comment, my intent was to get through the program without making too many waves. I told her again that my primary interest was in teaching in public schools, that I was a good teacher but didn't think I was beyond learning--quite the contrary, I thought there were many aspects of teaching that I needed to focus on and was looking forward to it.

After an hour of this, the ombudsman asked what the next steps were. Did we want to meet again? I said I would do whatever they both thought was best, but for my part, I thought we'd done enough. I was looking forward to coming in June and hoped that I had convinced her that I was not interested in causing trouble.

Dr. Lotan said that she was certain she wanted to meet again. She had doubts. Was she looking forward to me coming, to the trouble that I would cause, to seeing me in the program? No. Absolutely not.

I said okay, then I guess there's no point in our meeting again. The ombudsman said well, wait, I can understand why you might say that in light of the comment, but that perhaps Dr. Lotan could define how I could relieve her concerns. I said I would rather that she did that in writing, at this point. The ombudsman asked Dr. Lotan if she could do that, write things up, and perhaps we could meet again.

That's when Dr. Lotan dropped the bombshell. She said we would be meeting again, and that when she called for a meeting, she expected me to respond. "For the time being, you are still in the program, and when I ask for a meeting..."

The ombudsman and I both said "What?" at the same moment. She repeated her comment, with her focus clearly being on her insistence that I meet with her. She said "When I call a meeting, you come. You don't have to know why I want to meet. You have to come. You did not answer my email. That is unacceptable."

I said, "I did not answer your email because you had sent me an email talking about my 'potential participation', and I then received an email that indicated you had already made up your mind. At that point, I would not meet with you without a witness. And what do you mean 'for the time being'? I only met today because Dr. Rasch (ombudsman) said that this was accepted."

She said "You have been accepted, you have gotten your letter. For now. I will be honest. I will be going to seek legal advice as to whether or not I can rescind you. If I can't, then, well..."

"I was given to understand that you had agreed I was attending in June." (Dr. Rasch said "That was my understanding as well.")

"Well, you have not reassured me."

"But I would not have met with you if your position was that I had to reassure you. I made that very explicit to Dr. Rasch." He nodded. "I think it was dishonest for you to agree to these terms."

"You have to meet with me. It's required."

"I will not be meeting with you without a witness. I think at this point, you should formalize your concerns and write up a letter documenting that you intend to rescind my offer, or try to. But I will not help you build a case."

"I am not trying to build a case."

"I'm sorry, but I have a letter from your associate that says you were going to a lawyer while not mentioning this to me, and a declaration that you need to 'strategize'. You certainly appear to be building a case. I think it's not terribly honest to do so without telling me, and I guess I'll have to get a lawyer."

"Well, you still may be going. I don't know if I will be able to..." she paused.

"I really think this is unfair."

She burst out, "You say you're a 'good teacher'. If you're such a good teacher, why do you even want to go to Stanford?"

I looked at her in complete astonishment. "I've said many times. I need a credential. I want a master's degree as well. But what does my being a good teacher have to do with it?"

"You can get a credential anywhere. Why go to Stanford?"

"Look, I said I want to go to a good education school. I may be a good teacher, but I'm not so arrogant as to think I can't improve. Am I frustrated that I can't teach without a credential? Yes. But as I've tried to tell you many times, I'm not interested in causing trouble. But again--why did you meet with me, when you hadn't made up your mind."

She stood up. "Well, you haven't reassured me. I will email you at some point. I expect a response."

"You won't get one, and I will be contacting a lawyer at some point, until you either send me notification that you are trying to rescind, or acknowledge that I will be attending. At that point, I will be happy to meet with you."

Dr. Rasch said that if this went to lawyers, he would not be able to testify or act as a witness. He continued to stress that it would be good to continue meeting. She left.

So that's that.