The article suggests he was let go for "submitting numerous ethical complaints" but it is utterly unclear to me what these ethical complaints could have possibly been about, and the only source in this article is a starry-eyed protege. I am wondering if Brain was (perhaps unintentionally) abusing the complaint system as a way of adjudicating political disputes: "this person is stubborn and wrong" elevates to "this person is behaving unethically." My suspicion is that the numerous ethical complaints evidenced a pattern of unstable behavior.
I don't like speaking ill of the recently deceased. But I also don't like jumping into conspiracy theories based on platitudes about "the system," when there are more obvious explanations: his last email is a work of unhinged paranoia and resentment, not truth-telling in the face of oppression. It is obvious that Brain was mentally unwell in his last few hours; I wonder how long that was going on.
There is a stark divide emerging between the sorts of people that in my view speak truth to power, even if they speak poorly or strangely or are entirely unable to read the room, and the kinds of people that have internalized the ideology that nothing is wrong and anyone that complains, especially more than once, is most likely mentally unstable, paranoid, delusional, and so on.
Every character in this story used mostly internal tools plus I don't know the rules in NCSU, but the reactions around his issues look like weirdly huge. "Retired" at 63?
I don't like speaking ill of the recently deceased. But I also don't like jumping into conspiracy theories based on platitudes about "the system," when there are more obvious explanations: his last email is a work of unhinged paranoia and resentment, not truth-telling in the face of oppression. It is obvious that Brain was mentally unwell in his last few hours; I wonder how long that was going on.