The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Claim that University Libeled Students and Coaches by Falsely Accusing Them of Blackface Skit Can Go Forward
[UPDATE 8/2/23: Yesterday, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court decision I wrote about below.]
From Day v. California Lutheran Univ., decided by Judge Josephine Staton (C.D. Cal.) Aug. 30 but just posted on Westlaw (appeal pending):
In their FAC [First Amended Complaint], Plaintiffs allege that in January 2020, the Softball Team "held a team-bonding lip-sync event with makeup and costumes." Jane Does 1-5 decided to perform The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air theme song and "dress like 'dudes' in a 'Boy Band' with the style of Hip-Hop clothing worn by 'Boy Bands.'" They also "decided to add hats or wigs to hide their feminine hairstyles, and makeup to portray facial hair to make their faces appear more masculine." Two of the girls wore "dirty-blond 'Napoleon Dynamite' wigs." The lip-sync routines were observed by members of the Softball Team, as well as by Plaintiff Coaches Day, Gluckman, and Young. Plaintiffs note that Does 1-5 took part in the lip-sync routine and Does 6-24 did not. The Softball Team later "posted pictures and videos of said routine to their Team Instagram page."
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Chris Kimball, then the President of CLU and Melissa Maxwell-Doherty, then CLU's Vice President of Mission and Identity, "viewed said pictures and confirmed with the Softball Team, their coaches, and their parents that said Softball Team members: a) were under the supervision of an African-American Softball coach; b) had makeup on their faces to resemble men's facial hair in the form of beard stubble and goatees; and c) were not engaged in any racially motivated activities."
However, Plaintiffs note that "[d]espite such confirmation, Defendants Kimball and Doherty publicly proclaimed to the entire Ventura County community and national press that: a) said conduct constituted 'Blackface'; b) Plaintiffs intentionally participated in and/or allowed 'comedic performances of 'blackness' by whites in exaggerated costumes and makeup'; c) CLU intended to 'call attention' to the event to the entire Ventura County community – not just the CLU community; and d) '[t]hose who are responsible will be held accountable.'" Plaintiffs further allege that "Defendants Kimball and Doherty in particular, allowed the Softball Team and their Coaches to be publicly shamed and harassed, placed in fear for their safety, be the subject of unabated racial slurs by other students in violation of CLU written policy, and to otherwise suffer lifelong injury to their mental health and reputations."
In the FAC, Plaintiffs detail the alleged harassment they received. For example, Plaintiffs allege that CLU sent two emails in February 2020 (on February 5 and February 10) to the CLU community that caused a tense environment on campus. The emails described, among other things, the alleged racist incidents occurring on campus, and used the phrase "Blackface" in apparent reference to one of the incidents that occurred on campus.
Plaintiffs contend that the February 10 email "inflamed racial passions and anger on the CLU campus to such a degree that the [Black Student Union] organized an unauthorized campus 'walk-out,' whereat they demanded the expulsion of the entire Softball Team for being racists." Plaintiffs allege that "[t]he toxic, volatile, and substantially racially-charged environment on campus Defendants created had become so pervasive and dangerous that the members of the Softball program were made to fear for their own personal safety and well-being." …
The court refused to dismiss plaintiffs' libel claim:
The Court … rejects Defendants' claim that the common interest privilege requires dismissal of Plaintiffs' defamation claims. Under California law, Civil Code Section 47(c) "extends a conditional privilege against defamation to communications made without malice on subjects of mutual interest." For purposes of assessing whether the common interest privilege applies, "malice has been defined as a state of mind arising from hatred or ill will, evidencing a willingness to vex, annoy or injure another person." Here, Plaintiffs allege that the statements were made with malice because, among other things, "CLU and its agents perpetuated a false 'blackface' event, and otherwise completely mishandled said event in part to retaliate against Coach Day for reporting the potential Title IX violation." Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that at least some of the statements at issue were offered in bad faith and with some awareness that they were not truthful.
For example, Defendant Kimball wrote in his February 5, 2020 email to CLU students that "two racist incidents … occurred in the last week," and "blackface and the N-word evoke white supremacy, anti-blackness and remind us that a violent, racist past is still with us today." In a February 7, 2020 meeting with the Softball Team and their parents and coaches, however, Defendant Kimball stated that he understood the Softball Team's claims that they were not racist and told them: "Just saying, in my heart, I believe that." Yet in his February 10, 2020 email, Defendant Kimball characterized the same conduct as "performances in which there were exaggerated characterizations of black people and culture" and defended CLU's use of the term "blackface" to refer to the performances. Taking these allegations as true and drawing reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, that Defendant Kimball knowingly misattributed reprehensible conduct to the Softball Team in his statements to the CLU community is plausible.
{Additionally, the Court notes that Defendants did not move to dismiss the defamation claims on the ground that they contain no provably false statement of fact ….}
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
"[T]he [Black Student Union] organized an unauthorized campus 'walk-out,' whereat they demanded the expulsion of the entire Softball Team for being racists." Did they even see the performance before making this demand?
Rhetorical question of the morning.
Yeah, one of those headline questions whose answer is always "no". Although sometimes the answer is always "yes".
If the Softball team had any guts, they'd demand the expulsion of the Black Student Union. It could be interesting...
Yes, it's why they did it. The 'performance' was unashamedly racist. The only 'debate' here is whether 'blackface' is an appropriate term for all racist mimicry of black people, or whether it only applies when racists actually paint their faces black.
Obviously, racist mimicry is still vile racism whether or not faces are actually painted black.
Ladies and gentlemen, your DEI team in action. Job security comes from the existence of divisive shit, and if it won’t occur organically then they’ve got to manufacture it.
The softball team obviously feels great wrapped in the inclusiveness of their fellow students and Team DEI.
The President of the school is on the DEI team?!
I don’t know what was going on, and neither do you. So quit writing stories that confirm your priors and let you stay angry.
Dependably the fastest and most virulent defender of progressive DEI assholery. You’re like a broken clock.
And there you go with your horribly unappealing insertion of thoughts into someone else’s brain. I’m not in the least bit angry. I find it sad that those types have to constantly be creating conflict. Not good for all of us as a whole. But I’m nowhere near angry as that would require me to care a lot more than I do.
You need to stop with the mind reading because you really, really suck at it.
But it's what he's best at. He has nothing else.
No, Alphabet Soup,
It is what he thinks that he is good at. Big difference.
I don't know what's going on and neither do you.
And yet you wrote a whole thing about what's going on. When you don't know.
Sorry it makes you angry for me to require you have evidence when you post what you're sure is going on, but that's a thing you should have!
You hate these departments, but every time I push back on your stories and generalizations, you call me names and continue to provide no evidence.
But no, you're not mad.
C'mon, S_0. It is just another chapter in the story of the new racism.
Come on, we all know what happened, it’s what my priors say!
No, we don’t,
No, I don't know what's going on, but I know the post has this:
"{Additionally, the Court notes that Defendants did not move to dismiss the defamation claims on the ground that they contain no provably false statement of fact ….}"
If there were "two sides to the story" about what these girls did, don't you think the college would have told the other side?
I am not denying that the defamation happened. I’m denying the whole ‘this was a diversity and inclusion op so they get payed even though racism is solved!’ theory everyone in here is to high on to bother proving.
Maybe that is what happened, but so far that is far from clear.
‘this was a diversity and inclusion op so they get payed even though racism is solved!’
Racism (from any race, toward any race) will never be “solved” so long as human nature exists in its present form.
As for white-against-nonwhite racism – the variety you seem to be referencing – it’s still around – though if you think it’s as pervasive and powerful as at earlier historical periods, you probably haven’t exactly done in-depth research on those earlier periods.
As for these incidents-of-racism-oops-maybe-it’s-not-racism-but-we-had-good-motives-so-we-shouldn't-be-accountable – these incidents do seem to happen more than random chance would allow. As if there’s a motive or incentive for some to find racism to be outraged about.
No, these are not random chance. But there are plenty of explanations for school administrators behaving badly than a racial grifting plan.
I know that’s the current hotness the right likes to push, and I know it happens. But I don’t thinks asking for evidence is a lot to ask.
I once worked for the US Fish & Wildlife service, at a field station. We were tasked to do a cost benefit analysis of the field station. We did, we found that the benefit we were providing was less than our budget, and recommended the facility be shut down (the local congresscritters disagreed, I guess - we got a budget increase the next year).
But that is pretty atypical for bureaucracies. Generally speaking, if you create a department with some fixed mission, they aren't going to come back and say 'mission accomplished, we're done here'. If you form a drug task force, they are going to find drugs even if the best they can do is a half smoked joint. This is just human nature. When you form a Diversity department, they aren't going to one day say 'Our work here is done'. They also aren't going to just set at their desks all day - they are going to find diversity problems, because they are human beings with the usual human frailties, one of which is liking to keep their job.
Present company excepted, of course - I think you have indicated in the past that the agency you work for is populated by a higher class of worker, who don't exhibit the usual failings of bureaucrats. That's awesome, and we taxpayers appreciate it. But like 'no one I know voted for Nixon!', it's a mistake to generalize that virtue to bureaucrats in general.
I work in a small office.
You are making a general tendency argument to bolster an unsupported story about a specific event.
Again, that’s narritivism. We all do this; I’m sure I’ve don’t it my share around here. But it’s not proving anything about this situation.
Yeah, he's just reciting DEI talking points purely by coincidence:
"blackface and the N-word evoke white supremacy, anti-blackness and remind us that a violent, racist past is still with us today."
Well, it hasn't been that long since that Anti-Black White Supremercist Ralph Northern was Governor of VA, I'd call keeping a fullterm baby "Comfortable" until executing it "Violent"...
Frank "against executing all babies before they've had a fair trial and appeals"
People can say liberal shibboleths and not be part of DEI.
The President and...Dean for mission(?) behaved awfuly. But I don't know why, and see no proof of the association that y'all are so eager to make.
"The President and…Dean for mission(?) behaved awfuly."
But you don't know what happened!
"People can say liberal shibboleths and not be part of DEI."
You are being intentionally obtuse, DEI is all the rage in every campus.
Look at this university's web site, a tab :
"Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Justice"
A "Core Team" of 7 black or Hispanic woman and one black man led by a Vice President of Talent, Culture, and Diversity. No Asians or whites though.
Weird how the badly behaved administration official here don’t include this eeeevil VP you found.
If I thought your "don't know what's going on, neither do you" was consistent with your takes on other/similar controversies, I could accept this at face value.
My years of reading your posts here says otherwise. Is it too much to acknowledge that if that facts as Professor Volokh has provided are correct, this is a miscarriage of justice? People are not out of line to suggest that the DEI/racialists are the first to say punishment first/trial later. That's what is so dangerous about this ideology (along with #MeToo/Title IV campus enforcements), the truth does not matter.
The facts are correct, so far as I know.
They do not without a number of assumptions support what bevis posted.
This is *absolutely* bullshit and a misscarriage of justice, as you put it. But yes, people are out of line to suggest they know the secret motives and associations here.
Covering your bases?
"The facts are correct, so far as I know."
"I don’t know what’s going on and neither do you."
Because the stories people are telling go well beyond the facts in the OP. This is not hard.
They “behaved awfully,” as even you say – so we’re down to choosing between DEI ideology or administrative spinelessness.
But what if you think those two things are organically connected? That’s a permissible assumption to make, it’s no more of a leap than going straight to “behaved awfully” despite their protest of good intentions.
I don’t know the explanation; I don’t buy your false choice.
All I’m saying is whit making up stuff because you want a narrative to burnish.
Find a non-DEI/spinelessness reason for using the folllowing specialized DEI language: "Blackface and the N-word evoke white supremacy, anti-Blackness, and remind us that a violent, racist past is still with us today."
Reference to "Blackness" (capitalized), invocation of violence, oh, and the rush to judgment, and in later articles the at-least-we-raised-consciousness defense...if that's not DEI then the DEI people should sue the university for infringing their patent on deranged wokeness.
Maybe they hate that guy and we’re looking to get him in trouble. I don’t know - you dint get to prove things by just ‘I’ll bet this is what happened and if you don’t tell me a better story I guess I’m right.’
If it’s a cynical misappropriation of DEI behavior and slogans, maybe the DEI people can disavow it. “They’re using our beautiful and wholesome value system to do something unsavory which we want nothing to do with."
This blog has a bizarre fixation on certain race-related issues.
On the bright side, no vile racial slur was published by this blog this time (at least, not yet).
What's the deal Jerry?? Saving all your "Klingers" for Turkey Day??? What do they serve at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
??? Real Cranberry sauce? or the kind with indentations from the can...
Frank
Not as bizarre as your fixation on bitter clingers.
Now about those drag queens and the womanface they wear ...
No no no, they are women in men's bodies, they have every right, even the duty, to look like the women they are. Or Womyn, or something.
Scratch a racist, get a homophobe!
The important thing is it could have been true. If some innocents get destroyed here and there to have a productive ongoing conversations (wink) about these things, that's a sacrifice we are willing to make.
As always, the demand for racial incidents is high and the supply is very low. So the people who trade in race grievances manufacturer fake racial incidents for their own benefit.
I wonder if Dems will ever decide to stop telling lies and trying to trick people as an everyday general behavior. You’d think more people would decide they don’t want to be a part of that. People are deciding that, but too slowly.
Blackface is nothing but clown makeup, and no person or group is too sacred to be made fun of. Those offended should just grow up and get over it.
There was no blackface here, so I don't know why you'd go out of your way to defend it.
Plenty of ways to make fun of black people without blackface. Black twitter does a hilarious job!
Unfortunately, that is the case with much black television that is a constant stream of racial stereotypes. (My mom watches sometimes).
Not wrong. Black folks don’t like get a pass; they can do racially problematic stuff about blacks too.
Not according to the "that's OUR word" crowd.
You are pretty simple if that’s the only way you can think of to be racists.
Yeah, I’m contest they get to say it at times I cannot. That’s fine.
The "that's OUR word" perspective isn't quite what you're making it out to be here. (I'm assuming good faith.)
Problematic performances by members of the target minority pick up a sense of self-deprecative humor. At the very least, it's not coming from a member of the majority, which picks up aspects of oppression. I cannot speak for black people, but for LGBT, mocking ourselves is entirely different than being mocked by bigots in the hetero majority.
If friends make fun of you, it's in jest and comes from a place of acceptance. If bullies make fun of you, it's a threat and comes from a place of dominance.
"Why are you discussing blackface in an article about blackface? Stop derailing!"
It’s am article where the main fact is the utter lack of blackface.
” Blackface is nothing but clown makeup, and no person or group is too sacred to be made fun of. ”
Interesting point to make at a blog that (1) prohibits the use of certain words (such as “sl_ck-j_w”) to describe conservatives and bans (2) commenters (such as Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland) who make fun of conservatives a bit too deftly for the proprietor’s taste.
Of course, you are still welcome to use a vile racial slur at this blog. That occurs quite frequently -- more often than monthly, for a period of years.
Carry on, clingers, at your hypocritical safe space.
You're complaining about being moderated again?
IRL, I run a club. I have a special restrictive rule for one particular kid that doesn't apply to any other kid. Is it because he was generally disruptive and not doing the activity the club is set up for, instead distracting the others from the activity? Is it because he was doing that sort of thing for almost the entire time, almost every time the club met? Is it because he once asked me for a piece of paper, then proceeded to shred the paper and dump it on my head while I was trying to concentrate, and then opened all the windows in the middle of winter? Is it because then a parent checking out the club came through the doors right then, saw a bunch of shredded paper on the floor and all the windows open, and they never came back? It's a mystery.
IMO this kid is lucky I didn't ban him entirely. He certainly has no right to complain that I treat him, personally, more restrictively. Such restrictions are necessary if I want other people to want to come to the club and actually participate.
Anyway, forget it. This blog might not ban you entirely (well, apparently they sort of did, but you just ignore it), but your signal to noise ratio is low enough that you can be the first non-spambot I mute.
Since they weren't wearing blackface and the college apparently will no longer defend the claim that they did, what's the relevance of your defense of blackface?
The Volokh Conspiracy's big bag of interest in and outrage concerning the subject of Supreme Court leaks seems to have . . . sprung a leak!
Carry on, cowards.
"Cowards"??? not "Klingers"???
this isn't the "Reverend" Jerry Sandusky I know and (don't) love, surely one of his fellow ummm "Violators", where's Jerry??? working on one of those Pauperis forms?? Committing a Man act of Mandamus?? Mopery with intent to Creep?? This is what happens when you don't log out of the Prison Library computer...
Frank
How could these statements possibly be considered libelous? It was once considered libel to falsely accuse someone who passed as white of having black ancestry, or to falsely accuse someone of being a homosexual. But surely such accusations wouldn’t be considered libelous today. Being black or being gay simply doesn’t imply anything negative about a person’s reputation. It simply isn’t a bad thing. Indeed, for the law to consider such an accusation to be libelous puts the state on the side of the bigots. The state is saying being black or being gay is legally disreputable and such people don’t have and deserve to have, as a matter of law, the reputations straight white people have.
Why should trans people be treated differently? Why should a false accusation of being trans be considered reputationally damaging? Why should the law consider trans people to deserve less of a reputation than cys people?
Here, cys white people were falsely accused of transracial behavior by transphobic bigots. Such behavior is obviously protected by the Civil Rights Act under Bostock. In exactly same way that discriminating against a woman for dressing like a man is protected under Bostock as obvious discrimination “because of” sex, discriminating against a white woman for dressing like a black man is protected as obvious discrimination “because” of race. Nobody has a legal right to deny these plaintiffs employment or professional opportunities because of their race. Anyone who does could be hauled into court and sued.
Because these plaintiffs cannot be discriminated against “because of” their race, they can’t be libeled by false statements about it, including false claims of transracial behavior.
The judge here, by putting the state’s imprimatur on racially transphobic bigotry, gives racially transphobic bigots the license of the law. Just as being black or gay isn’t damaging to ones reputation, under Bostock being trans isn’t either.
Poe's law may apply, but let's look at this:
"It was once considered libel to falsely accuse someone who passed as white of having black ancestry, or to falsely accuse someone of being a homosexual. But surely such accusations wouldn’t be considered libelous today."
What if someone lives in an Aryan Nations compound (do those still exist)? And the accusation comes from someone trying to ruin his standing in the Aryan Nations? Wouldn't that be reputational harm?
There’s no federal law, and no law in mmost states, prohibiting adverse employment consequences for political affiliation. There is a law that, since Bostock, prohibits adverse employment consequences for trans behavior.
Bostock was based on text. There is no textual basis for treating transracial and transsexual behavior any differently.
If it’s no longer libelous to claim a white person has black ancestry, if it’s no longer libelous to accuse someone of being transgender, why should it continue to be libelous to accuse someone of being transracial? The one is as protected as the other.
And why should social norms be any different? People who go around claiming that transgender people behave as they do because they hate the other gender and want to mock and denigrate them would be required to attend an anti-bigotry course if they were allowed to return to work or school at all. Why should transphobic bigotry be treated any differently merely because the people involved are transracial rather than transsexual?
What’s the difference between transracial and transsexual behavior? What’s the difference between people opposing them? How can what’s essentially the same thing — the idea that behaving like a different body type is bad – be considered irrational when it’s politically convenient for it to be irrational, yet settled and obvious truth when that happens to be politically inconvenient?
Because transgendered persons are not mocking any gender and they are not doing this as part of a humorous performance?
No, people who oppose transgender people say that they are doing exactly that - that they are insulting the gender they imitate. The question here is which side you believe. Why should the anti-trans people be believed in this case, why should the law see the world from the anti-trans people’s point of view in this case, while seeing it from the trans point of view in the other?
In any event motive is absolutely irrelevant under Bostock. It is utterly irrelevant whether or not, for example, a lesbian hates men or what attitude a transgender person has to either gender in general. Why should transracial behavior be any different?
More damning for your position, the evidence is pretty strong that as a practical matter motive doesn’t matter here either. Universities have fired black-identified people for fraud and similar when they clearly genuinely identified as black and were not doing it for any ulterior motives. And when firing these people, they said exactly the same sorts of things (they’re frauds, an affront to the tace they identify with, etc.) that anti-trans people say in matters of gender.
Anti-trans Klanspeople managed to terrorize one poor, helpless trans professor into signing a “confession” “admitting” that her racial identity constituted “anti-black violence” before firing her.
My question remains. Why should firing this professor “because of” her racial identity be treated any differently from firing her “because of” her gender identity? The text of the law treats the two the same. And under Bostock, text controls.
https://www.thecut.com/2020/09/historian-jessica-krug-admits-to-posing-as-a-black-woman.html