Due Process in Miami

Writing on the McGinn case at Miami, Brian Leiter reports that "A senior philosopher elsewhere wrote to me suggesting that what happened to McGinn seemed to be a serious violation of due process." Since people do make this kind of remark quite frequently, it's worth stating some of the facts, and a principle or two.

McGinn's resignation is a negotiated settlement. According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, 

After the university's Office of Equality Administration and the vice provost for faculty affairs conducted an investigation, Mr. McGinn was given the option of agreeing to resign or having an investigation into the allegations against him continue in a public setting, several of [McGinn's] colleagues said.

In Miami, Professor Edward Erwin's gloss on this is:

Colin chose to resign after he learned, or had very good reason to believe, that his tenure was going to be revoked regardless of what he did. It's been an unfortunate situation.

Surely this contradicts what we are told above! 

The situation as described is akin to what might happen in plea-bargaining. No public inquiry in return for resignation. Of course, Professors Erwin and McGinn might anticipate that the public inquiry would be unfairly conducted. Even so, how does the negotiated settlement count as denial of due process, as Brian's correspondent implies? McGinn had legal representation, Brian reports, and took his decision freely. He could have defended himself in an inquiry but he chose not to do so.

There may be good prudential reasons for McGinn's decision. It would be wrong to take it as an admission of guilt, and I want to emphasize that I do NOT so take it. But nor should one accuse the University of Miami, or its redoubtable president, of misconduct without more evidence than we have seen presented thus far.