So? That does not mean it was not a bluff or even that the administrator knew what was
First, your account is less parsimonious.....
It is more parsimonious that your explanations.
Nope. You are assuming everything I am plus additional psychological and behavioral assumptions of the administrators in conceiving and executing a plan to do something other than what they said they were doing. For example, I am assuming that they formed an intention and conveyed it to him. You are assuming they formed two intentions and two plans of action, one of getting him to believe he would be fired, and another of what they were actually going to do. Also, we know from cognitive science (of which I am sure you know nothing) that executing deceit requires more complex mental processes than merely expressing actual intentions. All of that makes your account contain multiple times more assumptions than mine.
But then again, parsimony does not necessarily translate into accuracy.
Not a surprising you'd dismiss it, given that your arguments on most topics run counter to parsimony and every other scientific principle on which competing explanations should be evaluated (like explanatory and predictive power, coherence with established theory). Since parsimony is clearly among the long list of basic features of rational and scientific thought of which you are ignorant, I'll explain it. Every assumption has a probability of being wrong and thus each added one lowers the probability that an explanation is valid. Since your account has my same assumptions plus at least double that, yours is half as plausible as mine.
Now if your account was superior on other dimensions then that could balance out its inferior parsimony. But it not superior on any other dimension, so parsimony carries all the weight in determining which is more plausible and thus which rational thought would prefer. It doesn't guarantee accuracy (nothing does in science), it just determines relative probability. Thus, preference for your account can only be based in a faith based violation of the basic principles of scientific thinking.
For one, it all happened within hours. He was told he would be fired if he did not immediately resign, so he resigned within hours of hearing this. He thought he had little time, so he made a quick decision.....
You do realize the buttresses my point that he did not think strategically or was a clueless twit.
Yes, under massive time pressure and emotional stress, he made a sub-optimal decision, just as cognitive science shows most people do. A fact which has zero relevance to how the Universities actions reflect the reactionary culture that they themselves were reacting to.
Not to mention, he was emotionally traumatized by the threat as any and every professor would be in that situation...
You obviously do not know any and every professor. Because I know plenty who would have said - Go ahead and fire me.
So, how many highly honored established profs do you know who were suddenly told overnight that they would be fired over essentially nothing? None? I thought sso. Therefore, your claims of personal knowledge of various profs are meaningless, since you haven't witnessed them in that situation. All we can do is predict based upon that mountain of relevant cognitive science you are completely ignorant of that says that a person losing their long term job after a lifetime of praise and reward for their quality work, and it happening overnight would cause severe emotional stress in the vast majority of people, profs or otherwise. We also know that when a threat is severe and unexpected, the initial reaction is one of recoil, retreat, and self-protection which is akin to resigning. Attack typically comes only after time to assess the threat (including past experience with it) and knowledge that it can be beaten. This predicts most would respond to that emotional trauma under time pressure with resignation. However, that is somewhat moot since all that matters is that it is a perfectly predictable and understandable response for some people to react to that situation just as he did. That means that his resignation rather than "fire me" response implies nothing other than that he is a normal human being. Thus your and others harping on it is a pure red-herring to distract from the actually meaningful aspects of the scenario.
Most people would do the same and be clouded by emotion, regardless of whether you have the basic human empathy or willingness to apply basic facts of human psychology to understand that.
Given the lack of reality and reason in your argument so far, why should anyone take your word what "most people would do"?
You don't need to take anyone's word. You just need to apply a millisecond of honest thought to the smallest amount of knowledge that even you must have of basic human behavior. IOW, you just need to stop actively denying the basic facts your are aware of out of a biased desire to protect your faith.
Again, more basic facts of reality you are intentionally dismissing to protect your faith that PC extremism in general and at Universities in particular has not already surpassed the point where it damaging science, free thought, and honest discussions of real problems and potential solutions.
This straw man is more than ironic coming from you.
My assessment is made ever more valid with your every sentence and repeated disregard for undeniable facts such as that unexpected threats trigger emotions, and that emotional stress impairs optimal decision making.
Kevin_B._MacDonald 
