|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Eastman School expulsion story is troubling from every angle, including the decision by the graduate student to seek help from a law firm closely affiliated with far right ideologues who want to restrict freedom while claiming the opposite.
But the most troubling aspect of this mess is this line from Alex Holly’s clearly written report:
“… on Feb. 25, after she expressed an intent to file an official complaint with the state Division of Human Rights if the matter wasn’t resolved, she received an expulsion letter.”
Penalizing someone for exercising their lawful right to file a complaint with a government agency—assuming this is what happened—is a lunkhead move that could prove very costly in litigation. A jury could very reasonably see that as a sign of bad faith.
That action ought to prompt a review by U of R management of the employees who made that boneheaded decision.
If legal counsel was involved, it should set off fire alarms because lawyers are supposed to safeguard the university’s charitable assets, not increase their exposure.
Even assuming the absolute worst about the graduate student, expulsion after a declaration, even a threat, to file a formal complaint with the appropriate government agency is an utterly unjustifiable action that should offend everyone, but most especially the University of Rochester president and the board of trustees.
David Cay Johnston
The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].
Jim, I agree, at some point the UR may have to explain the timing to an hearing officer. There is a reference to possible explanations in Holly’s piece. She did a good job reporting it. But no one, no one, knows the full extent of the reasoning. We just don’t.
It would be one thing for Johnston to have questioned the timing, but that’s not what he did. He assumed the worst and publicly condemned others as “boneheads”. Holly addresses that in her reporting, Johnston never considers that part of her piece.
To me the only “bonehead” thing is what we seem to have degenerated to in this country, kowtowing to the court of public opinion, making rash judgements, condemning without consideration, and giving no grace.
Until I hear otherwise, I make no judgement in this case.
See you out there.
Gary,
You know issues about burden of proof, probably better than I do. The point here to me is timing. It does not matter if the claim of discrimination has merit at this time. If the filing of the complaint was the reason, or one of the reasons for expulsion, that in itself is the violation.
Normally this issue is and must be addressed before the merits of the claim.
Jim, you are free to stand by your comment, even if not legally correct.
Note where the word “proof” fits in.
https://nyshumanrights.com/the-hearing/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20to%20prove%20a,2)%20his%20job%20performance%20washttps://nyshumanrights.com/the-hearing/#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20to%20prove%20a,2)%20his%20job%20performance%20was
But, even if this were the case, and the Eastman School fired her because she is a woman (Seriously? Think about that for a moment, the University of Rochester firing someone because they are a woman.), there is no evidence, much less proof of that at this point.
I’ll assume you read the response by the Eastman School in Holly’s reporting. (See I’m willing to assume you did :)) Did you read the UR’s response? I don’t read Holly as condemning the Eastman School, for one that would be poor journalism not knowing all the facts. Second, she does make the point the UR is prohibited from commenting fully. That should have been a red flag for Johnston. What I’m suggesting, that no one at this point has enough evidence to condemn the UR lawyers as boneheads.
BTW, Establishing a prima facie is only one of four “proofs” the complainant needs to establish to get a favorable result.
I get the impression you have confused what one needs to file a complaint with what one needs to prove a case.
Me? I’ll wait to all for the facts before making a judgement.
Proof, as opposed to a prima facia case, is for sworn evidence in an administrative hearing or in a court. Normally reporting allegations and counters proceeds such determinations.
I understand that. The claimant can make an accusation based on prima facie evidence. Been there, done that. But that claim amongst others must be proved in a hearing. The letter write made a judgement based on a claim, not upon proof or a finding.
The point is we don’t know all the facts and neither does Johnston. He is a public figure many people listen to, it was irresponsible to condemn the University and University lawyers with name calling before knowing the facts.
Jim, this is where you and Johnston are confused.
Condemnations based on assumption? In our system and sense of justice, the burden of proof is with the accuser. You don’t have to prove your innocence.
Imagine where that would lead us.
“My mind is made up, don’t confuse me with the facts.” Who does that sound like?
Is it assumption Gary or is it journalism in search of the truth? The fourth estate’s purpose is credibility and accountability. A case has to be made that it is not credible, or if it is credible, then a defense for expulsion for engaging in a protected right. Indications are the complainant is not anywhere near my views, but a protected right is for everyone. You know as well as most, again qualified that if the report is true, that an adverse action immediately after exercising a right, is a prima facia case that must be answered. I do not believe this is a radical view.
Jim, here’s the confusion, I have no issue with the reporting at all. The issue is Johnston’s assumption one side is right and the University’s lawyers are “boneheads”. Holly made it clear that the Eastman School and UR are prohibited from making a full public defense and that there are plausible reasons why the subject of the matter was dismissed other than discrimination based on her sex. Remember it was the subject who went public making disparaging remarks and personal attacks about individuals. This is on her. She unnecessarily invited the University’s reaction.
First, he should know better that lawyers only advise, decisions are made by officials.
Second, Johnston admits that there are assumptions, then if he knows all the facts are unknown how does he justify making a judgement.
Sounds Trumpian.
Some things I learned in my 30+ years of conducting investigations, including sex discrimination cases, is that not everyone claiming to be a victim is a victim, and to keep an open mind.
Johnston went out of his way to condemn the University when he doesn’t know all the facts, or didn’t read the article thoroughly.
He knows better, it was disappointing to see his letter.
I stand by my comment. Based on the Holly report the burden of proof is not on David Cay or Holly’s report, but on the Eastman School to refute the report with facts. If there was another serious reason for expulsion, not doing so until the student filed a complaint with the state’s Division of Human Rights puts the burden of proof on the Eastman School and not on Johnston or Holly. Filing such a complaint, just as filing a complaint of discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act as Amended, is a lawful and protected activity.
“a law firm closely affiliated with far right ideologues who want to restrict freedom while claiming the opposite.” What firm is that? If you’re referring to FIRE, your characterization is grossly false. FIRE is a non-partisan advocacy organization (not a law firm as such, though they have a legal team that takes cases), willing to take on either side in the cause of freedom of speech. FIRE advocates on behalf of both drag shows and gender ideology critics, and countless other cases that fall all over the ideological spectrum, as long as the issue is protecting free speech. Check their case list at https://www.thefire.org/cases for examples.
I agree with you David.
I’m not ready to assume the reason for the expulsion was the threat to file a complaint.
I’m sure we all recognize the difference between coincidence, correlation, and causation. And, things are not always as they appear.
One thing I learned in a lifetime of conducting investigations, never assume what you’re seeing and hearing is the truth, especially when the accusation is one-sided and contains the word “seemingly.”
Barry Weiss and Greg Lukianoff are alt-right?
The ACLU has defended Nazis, Rush Limbaugh and a host of awful people, so what?
Let’s hope the University’s lawyers are doing more than protecting assets.
David Cay is a 100% right. It is amazing that those claiming equal rights for all are discriminating against white Christians and their freedoms, and that they are society’s victims, then bully others to condemn free speech by censoring what can be taught, censor the media by financial penalties, and love to ban books. In Florida they even censored ” The Diary of Anne Frank “. I guess the book must be unfair to Nazis who murdered her along with millions of others. Amazing how fast profits and stockholder returns have trumped free speech out of fear from the elite. The billionaires are very confusing to me. What redeems someone who is a billionaire and is still a coward, or worse, a fascist demanding more wealth?
James, If you are arguing that the U of R is being “(bullied) by censoring what can be taught…” then the letter writer cannot be “100% right.” Indeed, he would be 100% wrong.
Although the author is a respected critic of the current national administration, he seems confused on this matter. First, because we simply do not know all the facts, and secondly, if your argument is correct, it would be capitulation to those censoring free speech in an academic setting.
Johnston writes, “…assuming this is what happened…”, that sir is enough to negate the condemnation of the University decision makers as “boneheads”. I’m a bit surprised that the writer who has conducted “investigations” reached such a conclusion without knowing all the facts and hearing only one-side of the story. Why, he does not know who made that decision or what the advice of the UR attorneys was. I’m surprised he didn’t take into account attorneys can only advise, decisions are made by the responsible parties.
“I got bad advice” is a Trumpian defense.
In stating the author that David Cay is 100% right that includes his statement “assuming this is what happened”. Furthermore, the burden of proof lies strictly
with the Eastman School to prove that the student was expelled for some other serious reason that warrants expulsion and disprove Alex Holly’s reporting. Even if discipline of the student was for another reason, the fact it was not done until and immediately after a complaint was filed with the Division of Human Rights establishes a prima facie case of Eastman’s violation of law. Such complaints, like an official complaint of illegal discrimination under the 1964Civil Rights Act as Amended, is known as a “protected activity”.