The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Yale Law DinnerPartyGate Makes It to Federal Court
You can see the Complaint (alleging breach of contract, defamation, disclosure of private facts, and related torts) in Jane Doe & John Doe v. Heather Gerken, Ellen Cosgrove, Yaseen Eldik & Yale Univ., as well as the "dossier" in Exhibit A, as well as the motion to allow pseudonymity. An excerpt:
[1.] Two Yale Law School deans, along with Yale Law School's Director of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion, worked together in an attempt to blackball two students of color from job opportunities as retaliation for refusing to lie to support the University's investigation into a professor of color.
[2.] Gerken, Yale Law School's Dean, and Cosgrove, the Associate Dean, approached an esteemed law professor and expert in constitutional law, and discouraged the professor—who already employed Jane and John as long-term research assistants—from hiring Jane and John as so-called "Coker Fellows," prestigious teaching assistant positions that often lead to federal clerkships and other lucrative career opportunities.
[3.] Defendants Gerken and Cosgrove approached the professor as retaliation for Plaintiffs Jane and John's reporting a harassing and defamatory report (the "Dossier," Ex. A), which was compiled and circulated by another law student and related to Plaintiffs' private interactions with a high-profile Yale Law School Professor, Amy Chua ("Chua").
[4.] The Dossier, which Defendants disseminated, placed Jane and John at the center of an ongoing campus-politics feud between Gerken and Chua.
[5.] When Plaintiffs reported the Dossier to the University, Defendants Cosgrove and Eldik pressured Jane and John to make knowingly and materially false statements in a formal complaint against Chua.
[6.] When Plaintiffs refused, Gerken and Cosgrove retaliated by speaking with the professor and telling him that he should not hire Jane and John because of their "lack of candor," despite Plaintiffs' steadfast refusal to lie to further the University's crusade against Chua.
[7.] Not only did Gerken and Cosgrove harm Plaintiffs by knowingly circulating a document full of lies to Plaintiffs' employer and professor, but they also violated the University's Policy Against Discrimination and Harassment (the "Handbook")—by its own terms a binding contract on all members of Yale's community—whereby the administration is explicitly prohibited from retaliating against students who report a concern, file a complaint, and/or participate in an investigation….
As always, recall that this is just the plaintiffs' side of the story.
UPDATE: Yale Daily News (Eda Aker & Philip Mousavizadeh) has the story as well, and adds:
University spokesperson Karen Peart wrote in an email to the News that "the lawsuit is legally and factually baseless, and the University will offer a vigorous defense."
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Shut down Yale.
Seriously - shutting it down would be an overreaction, but I do think we need to radically lower Yale's position (along with a few other places) on the recruitment list for clerkships, congressional internships, elite law firms, etc. Even without their current problems, it's unhealthy for a few institutions all in the NYC/Boston area to have this much influence.
So would you say that Yale has a *lock* on certain positions?
You've tumbled to their cunning plan.
I’m guessing it’s a master plan. And that when prospective donors also tumble to it, they’ll **** en masse.
I'm sure Cosgrove, Eldik, and the rest of the Yale Law DEI mafia would bristle at your use of the phrase "master plan." Might even launch an investigation over it.
If it ever gets to the point where puns that innocent are verboten, I’m just gonna bolt.
Here's a guide to an otherwise inexplicable censorship standard governing puns at this blog:
"c_p s_ccor" is prohibited and will be deleted by the Volokh Conspiracy Board of Censors
"pho queue" is permitted and will draw a hat tip from the proprietor
At least, when those words are used by certain speakers.
Sometimes, making this blog look silly gets almost too easy.
What an embarrassment. Maybe I'll change my nym to H81 so people don't associate me with the current university administration.
They really are embarrassing themselves with all this nonsense.
compare (source):
For thirty years I worked in the corporate world, mostly as a software developer. I did a lot of contract work: six months here, a year there. I saw, and worked in, a lot of white-collar organizations, public and private. Some of them worked better than others. One or two were running disasters. They all had some women in them, often in senior positions. Some had only a few women; some had a lot.
Let me put this as delicately as I can without calling down the Furies on my head. I have no problem at all with a female president. I was a great fan of Margaret Thatcher. However, a White House and administration that was full of women, or dominated by women, or even just majority female, or even, I'd say, more than 20-25 percent female, would be a catastrophe.
Men with men can work. It doesn't always work well, of course, but it can. Men with some women can work, with the same qualification. Women with women? Katy, bar the door … if Katy can take a break from shrieking, scheming, and sobbing.
No misogynists here . . . right, Volokh Conspirators? This White, male blog attracts a healthy following of upright citizens, with no racism, misogyny, gay-bashing, xenophobia, Muslim-hating . . .
Professor Volokh,
Will you be intervening to oppose the motion for pseudonymity as you often do in these cases?
Or do you think it has merit in this particular case?
The students are students and in a somewhat dependent position. But they are not minors. And I suspect everyone involved in the matter knows who they are.
It appears Prof. Volokh will answer this one with his conduct.
What do these litigants have in common with Publius . . . other than Prof. Volokh's apparent fondness?
My general assumption is the party promising a "vigorous" defense has neither the facts nor the law on its side and is pounding on the table.
And you assume that based on what, precisely? Granted, that's what a guilty party would say. But it's also exactly what the lawyers for an innocent party will say.
Is it ?
Might not an innocent party say something herself, rather than leave it to "University spokesperson Karen Peart" ? And might she not add a few words on the end, thus :
"the lawsuit is legally and factually baseless, and the University will offer a vigorous defense.....and may God strike me down if I lie"
Even a good solid affidavit, made under penalty of perjury, would boost our confidence in the veracity of University spokesperson Karen Peart, or her principal. I can't think of why people don't do it that way 🙂
If the defendant is factually innocent, say "it was a live girl, not a dead girl." If the defendant is legally innocent, say "there's no law against a 17 year old carrying a long gun in public". If the defendant is guilty as sin, have him plead "100% not guilty."
Or they are just playing their cards close knowing that this is going to be a difficult case. Or they haven't finished formulating their defense and told the PR rep to not say anything committal.
And Lee, most people would find such a declaration to make you LESS believable. Most people don't actually believe in divine judgement bolts, and so those people who invoke them are considered to be making wild claims. The "protests too much" trope is very strong on people's minds.
Well it depends who is calling down the wrath of God. Believer or unbeliever.
But for the Devil's spawn, such as Deans of law schools and their Spoke-spawn, an affidavit would do fine.
Yawn