[munin]

From the letter linked in the article:

> In sum, your own oral and written statements to the OIE investigator, the Dean’s Office, and others clearly establish the following:

> On May 8th, 2019, carrying bolt cutters and leading a group of non-affiliates to campus, you forcibly entered Garland Hall in the middle of the night. By your own admissions, your actions were premeditated and you expected that your actions could result in a violent confrontation with students and others in or around Garland Hall. In fact, you believed the group of non-affiliates you brought with you could become violent. As a faculty member at Johns Hopkins University, you created a dangerous situation that could have ended in serious harm to our students, yourself, and others in the community.

> Prior to May 8th, 2019, JHU administrators had clearly and repeatedly instructed you that Garland Hall was closed and that you were not permitted to enter, despite your requests for permission to access the computer servers in the building. You acted in deliberate defiance of the administration’s directives. You have flagrantly and unapologetically violated JHU directives and your actions have endangered the University community. Further, you stated you feel no remorse or regret for your actions.

I don't understand how these events are acceptable. Neither Daniel Povey nor JHU seem to dispute any of the critical facts. How is recruiting some muscle to go bust some heads, in any universe, an acceptable course of action? For any employer?