| Bard College
Was Sued for Bias & Dean Buying Drugs
from Students Now Erasure Sought
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Patreon Maxwell
Book
SDNY COURTHOUSE,
Jan 4 – Bard College was sued
for racial discrimination, in
a semi-sealed complaint which
says its "nearly all-white
Annandale campus [i]s a
scenario from the racial
horror film, 'Get out.'"
Initial complaint on Patreon here.
Jane Doe
the plaintiff is described as
a gay woman of color hired by
Bard in 2008. which then
refused to protect her against
a violent student, "conducting
a sham investigation against
her that was itself an act of
racial harassment, and
ultimately terminating her
employment."
On August 29 in
the case, assigned to U.S.
District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Judge Cathy Seibel, a motion
for Jane Doe to proceed under
a pseudonym.
On September 2,
the parties agreed on a
briefing schedule: Bard to
oppose by September 27, reply
on October 11. But Bard's
letter is still not in the
docket - they must agree, or
filing dueling redactions by
September 7. Watch this site.
The
complaint quotes Bard Dean
Michele Dominy telling Doe
that faculty "thought she was
qualified but 'arrogant.'" It
says Associate Dean of Student
Timand Bates, an alum,
"sexually harassed and bought
drugs from students."
Doe quotes Chinua
Achebe he left Bard because he
could not stay at a place that
treated his wife that way -
calling her "crazy" and "off
her rocker."
On September 12
Judge Seibel ordered that the
entire letter of August 30 be
docketed: "ORDER re: [18] Memo
Endorsement: The parties have
agreed that Defendants 8/30/22
letter (to which ECF No. 14
responds) should be docketed,
except Plaintiff wants one
sentence redacted and
Defendant objects. I find no
grounds to redact the disputed
sentence. To the extent
Plaintiff is concerned that
the sentence will be
misconstrued as suggesting
sexual impropriety, I can only
say that any such inference is
unsupported by the language
used. (HEREBY ORDERED by Judge
Cathy Seibel) (Text Only
Order)."
On September 13
the letter went into the
docket unsealed. Bard says,
among other things,
"Plaintiff's sexual
orientation is no secret as
she publicly identifies as a
lesbian." It notes Google
searches for "Race and the
Pastoral" - which lead to Ann
Seaton a/k/a Annie Seaton. My
Old School, indeed.
Inner City Press
received this letter: "Dear
Inner City Press
Editor: I am
one of the attorneys
representing the Plaintiff in
the lawsuit against Bard
College described in the
article published on September
13 in the Inner City
Press. We ask that
you please revise the online
article to remove mention of
what you believe to be the
Plaintiff's name. It is not
for the press to put its hand
on the levers of justice. Our
client’s right to proceed
anonymously is an extremely
important issue of civil
rights law that we are arguing
in the courts and on which the
judge intends to issue a
decision on December 5th. Our
client’s ability to proceed
anonymously is itself
important to this country’s
ability to deliver on the
promise of equal opportunity
in higher education because
the reason, for example, the
dynamic at Bard College has
been able to persist for so
many decades is because the
costs to individuals
attempting to enforce their
civil rights are so much
higher than the potential
gain: (1) academic employers
do not like to hire people who
have sued their former
employers, (2) with regard to
Bard College, there is
near-certainty that, in the
words of one witness, “Leon
will destroy your career” by,
as here, alleging that the
termination was not
retaliatory but that you are a
disgruntled “underperforming”
employee who somehow violated
Bard policy.
New York amended its human
rights law in 2018 and again
in 2019 to allow punitive
damages and to require that
settlement agreements not be
made contingent on plaintiffs
signing non-disclosure
agreements because the
legislature realized that
these lawsuits are not being
brought and litigated in
public but instead settled
behind closed doors with
defendant employers exacting
non-disclosure agreements; in
other words, in a manner where
the public cannot scrutinize
the facts or have any way of
knowing what is going on on
College campuses. And that’s
because the power differential
has been so heavily on the
side of the institution
because of the combined effect
of the reputational costs, for
plaintiffs, of bringing a
lawsuit and the lack of
resources to do so. Please
don’t use your journalistic
platform to put a finger on
that scale. As you already
know, public disclosure of our
client’s identity is not
important to determination of
the facts that the public
cares about: did Bard College
terminate her because she is a
whistleblower? Are the facts
alleged in the complaint true?
All of that is information
that does not depend on her
identity, but on Bard’s own
conduct.
Sincerely,
Zachary Bendiner (from
the Law Office of Avery P.
Gilbert)."
On
December 5, Judge Seibel ruled
that the name may not be
withheld: MOTION to Seal filed
by Jane Doe.. the Court DENIES
the motion. The Clerk is
directed to terminate the
Motion (Doc # 8). Plaintiff is
directed to file Complaint
that redacts what is proposed
in the November 21, 2022
letter and to add the
Plaintiff's name. The parties
are directed to meet and
confer regarding any further
redactions, and if the
Defendant(s) or Third Parties
want to make a motion, then
they need to follow the
necessary protocols."
On December 29,
2022, this was docketed:
"NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the
plaintiff(s) and or their
counsel(s), hereby give notice
that the above-captioned
action is voluntarily
dismissed, without prejudice
and without costs against the
defendant(s) Bard College.
Document filed by Jane Doe.
Proposed document to be
reviewed and processed by
Clerk's Office staff (No
action required by chambers)."
But it wasn't
over, at least the requests or
demands. Bard demanded that
the Complaint be taken off web
sites, including at Yale Law
School. This was opposed on
First Amendment grounds, and
because the court no longer
has jurisdiction over the
parties, after dismissal of
the case. But the requests and
demands continued.
Watch this site.
The case is Doe
v. Bard College, 22-cv-7258
(Seibel)
***
Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a
month helps keep us going and grants you
access to exclusive bonus material on our
Patreon page. Click
here to become a patron.
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA
Mail: Box 20047, Dag
Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other, earlier Inner City Press are
listed here,
and some are available in the ProQuest
service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright 2006-2023 Inner City
Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at]
innercitypress.com
|
,
