This thread puzzles me. Almost everyone is adamant in their viewpoint that either Beard was (partially) responsible and deserved firing, or was possibly the victim of an abuser and thus shouldn’t have been fired.
Anyone who takes a firm stance on this issue, either way, is wrong, in my opinion, unless they have inside information on the actual facts of the case. And here is why.
Most are arguing that just because Beard ended up in an orange jumpsuit and/or hurt the reputation of the university, he deserved firing because the argument is he should not have put himself into that situation. That may be true. But it may also not be true.
As Derka correctly points out, the courts, society, and laws have recognized the challenges that victims of domestic abuse must navigate. If he truly was a victim of domestic abuse, then you can’t necessarily automatically deem him in the wrong unless you knew all of the specific details of the situation.
People lie their ass off all the time. Nothing you hear in the media is necessarily true. So stop acting like there are concrete facts.
Conversely, he shouldn’t automatically get a hall pass either. We don’t know what really happened.
At this point I’m assuming that CDC uncovered enough private information to deem him guilty enough to be fired. But I’m sure not going to condemn him or argue he deserved it. Because to do so would potentially ignore a domestic abuse situation, which would be very wrong if it existed.