A professor sues for defamation after a dean publicly stated reasons that later proved false, but the dean had invited the inquiry and was authorized to discuss the professor’s case. Which defense best explains why the professor would not prevail?

A professor sues for defamation after a dean publicly stated reasons that later proved false, but the dean had invited the inquiry and was authorized to discuss the professor’s case. Which defense best explains why the professor would not prevail?

• A. Absolute privilege
• B. Invited publication defense
• C. Qualified privilege
• D. Truth as a defense—truth is per se a defense

Answer: (B)