[CTcard]

Is it possible she was let go for some other reason and now is retaliating by claiming she was let go for this reason, to make the university look bad?

The article said that the a Stanford administrator sent the lawyer a letter stating that, "Given your stated lack of confidence [in Stanford's Title IX complaint process] it does not make sense for the university to continue to refer our students to you." Thus she was definitely not retained for reasons associated with her complaints to the NY Times, and likely elsewhere.

But perhaps you meant something more subtle and this was just the specific thing that prompted Stanford to act?

[CTcard]

Is it possible she was let go for some other reason and now is retaliating by claiming she was let go for this reason, to make the university look bad?

The article said that the a Stanford administrator sent the lawyer a letter stating that, "Given your stated lack of confidence [in Stanford's Title IX complaint process] it does not make sense for the university to continue to refer our students to you." Thus she was definitely not retained for reasons associated with her complaints to the NY Times, and likely elsewhere.

But perhaps you meant something more subtle and this was just the specific thing that prompted Stanford to act?