UR won’t explain why an Eastman student was expelled

Picture yourself at one of the most elite music schools in the country. You’ve earned your place after years of training, won the orchestra’s vote of confidence, and devoted your life to mastering one of the most demanding art forms on earth. Now picture your shock and surprise when you report your professor for harassment, and the school that promised to nurture your talent turns on you. 

You press for accountability. You speak out publicly. But instead of support, you face threats, isolation and, finally, expulsion.

That’s exactly what happened to Rebecca Bryant Novak, who until this year was pursuing a doctorate in conducting at the University of Rochester’s Eastman School of Music. And months later, the university is still ducking the most basic questions about why it abandoned its own rules to drive her out. Rebecca’s case is about more than music. It’s about free speech, due process, and how far powerful institutions will go to avoid accountability.

In October 2023, Rebecca reported Eastman’s director of orchestras, Neil Varon, for alleged harassment. According to Rebecca—and the university’s own investigative findings—the school mishandled her complaint at every turn. The university admitted in a letter to Rebecca that “the transparency, process, procedures, and resources deployed to address your complaints in this matter were inconsistent with University policy and practice and warrant improvement.” 

Yet when Rebecca published her account of the incident and this mishandling on her Substack newsletter, retaliation ensued: the threat of a defamation suit, hostility from peers, and dwindling performance opportunities.

Then, in December 2024, Eastman expelled her for “lack of academic progress,” despite previously confirming that she was on track for graduation. The school’s letter tacked on vague accusations about her conduct but made clear those weren’t the actual grounds for dismissal and were irrelevant to its claim about her academic work. To Rebecca, and to anyone familiar with the university’s policies, the message was clear: her expulsion was pretextual punishment for speaking out.

At the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, we called out the university for violating its own rules. Under its academic progress policy, students must receive warnings, probation, and an appeal process before dismissal. This policy is supposed to give students notice and a full year to correct things before dismissal occurs. Rebecca got none of these safeguards. 

We wrote to the university in June demanding that it correct this violation of due process. We weren’t alone. Over 790 members of the public signed on to our Take Action campaign pressing the university to reinstate Rebecca. The university’s response? Delay, evasion, and denial.

First, the university said it needed months to respond. Then, it blew its own deadline. Next, it told FIRE it wouldn’t respond to our letter at all—only to the New York State Division of Human Rights, where Rebecca had filed a formal complaint. Finally, when it eventually did respond to the division, it opened with this stunning line: “We have not attempted to rebut, straighten out, or even mention, each of Complainant’s misleading allegations in her exceedingly lengthy Complaint.”

In other words: The university won’t explain itself to FIRE, won’t explain itself to the public, and won’t even explain itself to the state.

Up until this point, the university has avoided substantively commenting on the case. Now that they have, it’s clear they won’t answer for the charge of retaliation Rebecca lodged with DHR. Instead, the university used its response to DHR to assassinate her character. But Rebecca’s story is not about whether she was a perfect student, colleague, or conductor. It’s about whether powerful institutions can ignore their own rules and silence those who challenge them. 

In July, when the Rochester Beacon reported on FIRE’s letter and Rebecca’s DHR complaint, it seemed the university was going to be held accountable by FIRE, DHR, or both. But now, it’s clear that UR administrators don’t think they need to answer to anyone—not to their students, not to the public, and not to their own policies on free speech, academic progress, and retaliation.

When universities expel whistleblowers on flimsy pretexts, then shrug off public scrutiny and legal process, what message does that send to the next student who considers reporting harassment? It’s this: speaking up is a liability. Rules only apply when it suits a university. Accountability is optional.

The DHR process is moving slowly. So far, the division has received Rebecca’s initial complaint and UR’s response, and have just confirmed receipt of her rebuttal (which she submitted last week). They told her an investigator will be assigned, but that step may take several months. Rebecca is exploring her legal remedies, but the reality is, if people don’t demand a sense of accountability and fairness, there’s only so far legal remedies can go in addressing the culture of silence at Eastman.

This is bigger than one student. The university’s refusal to answer basic questions about its treatment of Rebecca is a warning to anyone who dares speak out against misconduct in higher education. 

The university must be held accountable. The Board of Trustees, alumni, and the wider public should demand answers. Join us and tell the University of Rochester to stop muzzling its students. 

Jessie Appleby is a program counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. William Harris is the strategic campaigns specialist at FIRE.

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].