"Strangers on the Internet" Podcast Ep. 41: Aliza Shatzman on the Joshua Wright Allegations and Law School Culture

The founder of the Legal Accountability Project explores how we got here and how we get out

The 41st episode (Apple Podcasts link here and Spotify link here) of "Strangers on the Internet" features attorney and activist Aliza Shatzman.

In the third part of my coverage of the sexual misconduct allegations against ex-George Mason University law professor and former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright (part 1 with Prof. Christa Laser is here and part 2 with Prof. Brandy Wagstaff is here), I speak with a victim of judicial harassment and retaliation who founded the Legal Accountability Project.

After graduating from the Washington University School of Law in 2019, Aliza began clerking for a judge in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. After subjecting her to harassment and sex discrimination, the judge fired her and then went on to derail her legal career by providing false statements during her final reference check for a prestigious position as a federal prosecutor in such a manner that she lost the position.

Aliza and I discuss how little has changed in the twenty years between when I started law school--a time of shady "open secrets" at my own alma mater and in the judiciary--and today. We talk about the roots of the culture of silence and its reinforcement via tools such as defamation lawsuits, like potentially the one currently faced by two of Josh Wright's alleged victims, and what true change and principled allyship look like.

Note: According to a statement printed in the media by Lindsay McKasson, counsel to Joshua Wright at Binall Law Group "all allegations of sexual misconduct are false," "These false allegations are being made public after unsuccessfully demanding millions of dollars behind closed doors," and "We look forward to total vindication in court." According to a tweet by Prof. Christa Laser, "I don't appreciate that his attorney falsely suggests we are all lying (1/2 was in writing!) & want $ (this is a lie–I only want him gone)."

(Aliza Shatzman)

Comments

[ReaderY]

I know nothing about Aliza Shatzman’s situation or case. But from a very cursory view, it looks like the judge she clerked for accused her of being “nasty” and “bossy” and found himself “uncomfortable” with her.

Perhaps she is right that the judge here was merely applying a stereotype and she was was engaging in behavior that would be completely acceptable if done by a male. But I’ve certainly known males whom I would characterize as “nasty,” and “bossy,” and who made me feel uncomfortable to work with. Being difficult to get along with, and not being cooperative as a subordinate, are not, it seems to me, such gender-specific traits that they are automatically gender stereotypes. Sex discrimination is not, it seems to me, the only possible explanation of what happened, at least when described at this high a level of generality.

She obviously wouldn’t see things this way, and understandably so. But it’s at least possible that she really was a difficult employee to deal with, and gender wasn’t really what the judge’s concerns were about.

There may be more to this of course. There doubtless is. The details matter, and I don’t know them.

[ReaderY]

One can easily imagine a situation where, seen from the opposite point of view, a female employee who constantly argues back and constantly makes clear she knows far better than the boss how the work is to be done, can do so with impunity, because if a male supervisor makes any attempt to correct or even express discomfort with her behavior, she can go to HR and claim gender discrimination.

Perhaps male supervisors in a situation like this have no choice but to go to HR themselves, rather than make any attempt to talk to the female employee about their concerns directly, whereas there is no such problem where male employees are concerned. And perhaps HR will have to tell them there is nothing they can do. Perhaps this type of disparate treatment, where blatant insubordination has to be tolerated in females but not in males, is simply what the Civil Rights laws as actually applied in practice require if male supervisors wish to avoid legal liability.

[VinniUSMC]

*Male manager walking to HR to register a complaint against female employee*

*Sees male HR employee*

"Fuck, guess I just gotta live with it"

[Lee Moore]

There may be more to this of course.

There may be, or there may not be. All we know for sure is that you're not going to hear anything of the "more" from Prof Irina Manta.

And, ladies and gentlemen, and in-betweenies, In the blue corner it's ........ lefty lady Professor who says this particular white male Republican lawyer is a perv

And in the other blue corner it's ..... another lefty lady Professor who says all white male Republican lawyers are pervs

And by special invitation, in the third blue corner it's.....yet another lefty lady Professor who says the same thing

[David Welker]

You are right that the details matter. On her webpage, she has a link to written testimony before Congress about this (https://www.legalaccountabilityproject.org/our-team). In here testimony, she says that she was called into his chambers weekly in order to be berated.

But she doesn’t really say WHY. Instead she says:

The judge would call me into his inner chambers at least weekly—almost always when my male co-clerk was not around—to berate me for being “bossy” and “aggressive” and “nasty” and a “disappointment.”

Well, in order to judge, we need to know specific behaviors led him to apply the adjectives “bossy,” “aggressive,” and “nasty” to her behavior.

This woman does not say what she did. But given that she went in weekly, there is a very high probability that there were specific behaviors that caused these adjectives to be used and that the judge also told her what those behaviors were.

If he did talk to her weekly and did not say what the specific behaviors were, that would make him a bad supervisor from the perspective of providing feedback. However, if he did give her specific feedback, like “use more polite language when talking to X” and she just didn’t follow through, that would be her mistake.

This written testimony is strange, in that the person writing it did not even tell us anything about the behaviors that led to the adjectives or explain to us anything about the specific behaviors that were subject to criticism. And in my mind, that reduces her credibility somewhat. If the judge refused to provide examples of behavior even though she asked, she needs to explicitly say that right up front. (She mentions later that he didn’t provide her feedback on specifics in one particular instance, but is she saying that she talked to him weekly, but he never mentioned particular behaviors?) As it is, it feels to me like there is a decent probability that she is specifically not saying anything because the behaviors may not be good. Of course, that impression might be an error. She may have just failed to tell her story effectively.

There are people in the workplace who cause undue stress in others by not being sufficiently polite. These people can come in either gender. And their behavior needs to be stopped, because when you cause undue chronic stress in others, that is harmful to their health. Overall, treating others with respect is important not just because disrespect is unpleasant, but because chronic stress is physically unhealthy.

She is described as being “bossy.” For all we know from her incomplete testimony, that accusation could be true based on specific behaviors she exhibited. She never discusses specific instances that causes this adjective to be applied.

Some may complain that the adjective “bossy” is more likely to be applied to women than to men. To the extent that is true, the solution is to hold men more accountable, rather than hold women less accountable. “Bossy” is just another word for a demand that is made without being polite. And when people behave like that, whatever their gender, it makes the workplace less pleasant and often inflicts unnecessary stress on subordinates.

Now, the judge went farther here. He used the adjective “nasty” to describe her behavior. That goes for beyond “bossy.” I think that “nasty” behavior is the sort of behavior that would be even more likely to cause stress in the workplace.

Overall, this person’s written testimony is not drafted well. I have seen too many cases where someone says that X, Y, or Z said something mean about them, leaving out the reason why that person said that mean thing. I believe that such behavior is often intentionally manipulative. For example, a person who complains that everyone eventually abandons them while not mentioning the pattern of anti-social behavior that the people around them actually tolerate for longer than they should before eventually getting that person out of their life.

For some people, the focus is always on what is “done to them” rather than “what they did.” And that is what we potentially see with this congressional testimony.

ReaderY, you are perceptive in realizing that the person here did not provide a complete story. And that is a reason to be skeptical.

It is quite true that the skepticism could be wrong, but it certainly is justified. OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, the behaviors that were subject to criticism have been omitted for her testimony and all that remains is the criticism. It is a very one-sided story, so far.

[Frank Drackman]

Sounds like a real Bee-Otch

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Joshua Wright chose a Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force firm to represent him?

He’ll be lucky to stay out of prison.

[James K. Polk]

"... principled allyship ..."

Dismissed!