America First Legal (AFL) has secured a settlement to reinstate a law professor who was dismissed for challenging diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) hiring practices at Ohio Northern University (ONU).
This case centers on Dr. Scott Gerber, a tenured law professor who faced termination after publicly opposing what he saw as discriminatory hiring mandates. According to Daily Caller, AFL argued that ONU retaliated against Gerber for rejecting race and sex-based quotas in faculty recruitment.
Gerber’s journey began with principled dissent, as he repeatedly criticized racial preferences in higher education, calling them the “sacred cow” of academia in a 2023 opinion piece for the Cincinnati Enquirer. He pointed out that certain positions often appeared reserved for specific demographics, sidelining others based on ideology or background. It’s a sharp observation—when merit takes a backseat, can we still call it education?
In 2022, Gerber escalated his concerns by filing complaints with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. He alleged that ONU’s hiring practices violated laws against employment discrimination, a move that took guts in an environment often hostile to such challenges.
His actions didn’t go unnoticed—or unpunished. On April 14, 2023, campus security and armed police forcibly removed him from his classroom, an overreach that smacks of intimidation rather than resolution. He was dragged to the dean’s office and given an ultimatum: resign or face termination proceedings.
Gerber, unsurprisingly, refused to bend. The university pressed forward with termination efforts, alleging he posed a threat to the safety of faculty, staff, and students—a claim that seems more like a convenient excuse than a grounded accusation. If speaking out is a danger, then what’s left of free thought on campus?
The lawsuit filed by Gerber in 2024 painted a grim picture of procedural unfairness. It claimed the university’s process left him with no real chance to defend himself, costing him his job and tarnishing his reputation irreparably. Such heavy-handed tactics raise a question: is dissent now a career-ender in academia?
Adding insult to injury, ONU’s president, Melissa Baumann, allegedly issued a letter accusing Gerber of “moral turpitude,” a charge as vague as it is damaging. When institutions weaponize morality to silence critics, it’s not just one professor under attack—it’s the very idea of open debate.
AFL’s Senior Counsel, Nick Barry, didn’t mince words in defending Gerber’s stance. “Dr. Gerber should be commended for his courage in filing complaints about what he perceived as ONU’s consideration of race and sex in hiring professors, which is illegal,” Barry stated. Courage, indeed—standing up to a system that often punishes dissenters takes more than just conviction; it takes sacrifice.
Barry went on to highlight the personal toll on Gerber. “This has cost him years of lost teaching opportunity, reputational harm, and the stress of years of litigation,” he noted. Yet, in a culture quick to cancel, Gerber’s persistence is a reminder that truth can still find a foothold.
The settlement marks a significant turnaround, as ONU officially acknowledged that Gerber was never a safety threat. They also admitted he did not act with “moral turpitude” and praised his “outstanding teaching, scholarship, and service” during his tenure. It’s a rare admission, but one wonders if the damage to his career can ever truly be undone.
Gerber’s critique of DEI practices wasn’t just academic—it was personal. He actively worked to prevent such policies from taking root at ONU, believing they undermined fairness in hiring. When universities prioritize optics over qualifications, aren’t they betraying their own mission?
This settlement isn’t just about one professor; it’s a signal to institutions nationwide that silencing dissent comes with a cost. AFL’s victory shows that pushing back against controversial hiring mandates can yield results, even if the road is grueling. It’s a small but meaningful step toward restoring merit in education.
Still, the broader fight against progressive overreach in academia looms large. Gerber’s case exposes how far some universities will go to enforce conformity, using security and smear campaigns to quiet opposition. If this is the price of speaking out, how many others will stay silent?
In the end, Dr. Gerber’s reinstatement is a win for those who believe campuses should be arenas of ideas, not echo chambers. While the settlement vindicates his stand, it also underscores the chilling effect of punitive policies on free expression. Let’s hope this case inspires more to question the status quo—politely, of course, but with unwavering resolve.
