|
Cynthia Annett & Raymond Pierotti These trial updates are in reverse chronological order, from the beginning of the trial, through the verdict. |
Friday, March 3, 2000 In case you haven't yet heard, the jury in the gender discrimination and retaliation trial of Dr. Cynthia Annett and Dr. Raymond Pierotti found for KU on all claims. It is disappointing, but it is not daunting. All of us who are involved in this struggle have survived through disappointment after disappointment. The jury's verdict does not negate the evidence and testimony that is now part of the public record. We intend to use that information as best we can. During this first trial, we have succeeded in getting out some of the hard evidence, both as testimony and in the documentation, of the problems at KU in tenure and personnel issues. The depositions and documentation from the other cases, combined with their eventual trial presentations, will help us expose even more. Don't worry. We're not going away. We're only now getting the media attention and the light of day for which we've worked long and hard. Three more lawsuits are pending. KU will be back in court in less than a month. We're planning more visible demonstrations and activities. During the trial, some very positive things happened. For example, the University Committee on Promotion & Tenure asked all departments and schools that rejected tenure applicants to review their applicants again. For the first time that any of us are aware of, the University stepped in to advise a department to hire a woman when they had two candidates--one male and one female--that they had ranked equally. A group of students wrote a letter to the editor of the University Daily Kansan criticizing KU's attorneys for questioning the validity of Ray Pierotti's Native American heritage. One week after the University Daily Kansan ran a nasty front page editorial by one of my colleagues who opposes this struggle, the paper's entire opinion page was dedicated to editorials, columns, and letters of support for women, minority, international students, and Jewish student issues. Maybe we should keep KU in court all the time. All of us in the Kansas University Sexism & Racism Victims Coalition are proud of the incredible courage displayed by Dr. Cynthia Annett and Dr. Raymond Pierotti throughout this trial. We have suspected for a long time that KU's current administration might be willing to do and say anything--no matter how dastardly or undignified--to fight these lawsuits. We have all experienced their denigration of our records and their undignified personal attacks on our character. Expecting this, Cynthia and Ray allowed themselves to be trashed publicly in the hope of exposing and stopping KU's routine attacks against those who dissent. We're all also profoundly grateful to attorneys Alan Johnson and Steve Lanterman of the law firm of Sloan, Listrom, Eisenbarth, Sloan & Glassman, of Topeka, for their commitment to this cause. Hopefully, more than ever, you can see how much we need your assistance. Those of you on the AAUP committees can help us by putting pressure on KU to reform their tenure and evaluation system and their complaint and grievance procedures. Those of you in federal agencies can help us by putting pressure on KU by questioning their suitability for receiving federal funding. During this trial, we heard how protected-class faculty and staff have no real hope for resolution of their grievances in this workplace. We heard from KU administrators who testified that they performed only superficial investigations into the formal complaints of faculty, which then inevitably resulted in findings of no cause. We heard Provost David E. Shulenburger say that annual evaluations are not linked to tenure--even though at least in the case of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, their guidelines tell faculty that the annual evaluations are part of the tenure consideration. Shulenburger also testified in Mike Cuenca's case that KU does not adhere to the AAUP guidelines on tenure and promotion. We heard testimony that shows how the lack of solid standards and procedures for tenure and promotion places some individuals at risk of being evaluated unfairly. We saw how KU used an official investigation into charges of academic misconduct to stigmatize the review of Dr. Annett, then watched as they attempted to employ a similar tactic in Mike Cuenca's tenure review--even while under the heightened public scrutiny during the trial. We saw evidence of KU's management practices of favoritism and nepotism. Here's how the final day played out: After KU counsel Barbara McCloud rested her defense, she once again moved for a directed verdict/judgment as a matter of law, arguing that the plaintiffs had not presented any evidence to support their case. Judge Carlos Murguia denied the motion, then began the final proceedings by reading to the jury their instructions. He outlined their responsibilities, the aspects of the law, and the individual claims on which they would deliberate. Most importantly, he told the jury that discrimination and/or retaliation need not be the primary motive--nor even the sole motive--for KU's actions. He also told them that when they heard or read references to the University of Kansas, they were to remember that the reference is to officers and employees of the University, not to the University itself. Plaintiffs' attorney Alan Johnson then delivered a brilliant and persuasive closing argument. He referred the jury to KU's opening argument, in which they had described the case as being about "two people who complained." He told the jury that, indeed, these are two people who complain when they see injustice, two people who stand up for the rights of minorities, non-traditional students, and women. He then reminded the jury that both federal law and KU's own policies uphold the rights of individuals to make such complaints and be free of retaliation. "Isn't that what we want?" he asked of the jury, "people who stand up for what they think is right?" He said all that plaintiffs Annett and Pierotti ever wanted was to be treated equally and not retaliated against for their beliefs. Johnson went on to say that "the hallmark of a proper motive is consistency." He asked the jury to consider whether KU's explanations for their actions were consistent with the common experience of all of us, whether their explanations were consistent with their behavior, whether their explanations were consistent with telling the truth, and whether their explanations were consistent with the paper trail of documents. Johnson pointed out to the jury that no one at KU had applied the negative labels to Pierotti before he complained about the changes to the graduate program on the grounds that they would negatively impact minority students. He reminded the jury about the letter from Dean Sally Frost Mason, written the year before Pierotti's complaint, in which she praised him for his teaching and service to the University. Johnson reminded the jury that Dr. Annett was the very first woman to ever go through the regular, formal tenure review in this department and that her record was equal to or better than men who had been approved for tenure the years before and after she went up. Johnson reminded the jury that Provost David E. Shulenburger testified that when he denied Annett's tenure, it was the first and only time in the more than 500 tenure reviews he's supervised that he overruled the University Committee on Promotion & Tenure to deny tenure. Johnson reminded the jury of the letter from Dean Frost Mason, written immediately after the UCPT recommended Annett for tenure, with which he suggested the Dean was attempting to spoil the process. KU counsel Barbara McCloud began her closing argument by once again saying that this case "had nothing to do with gender discrimination" and "nothing to do with retaliation." Once again she said that the case was about two people who made bad choices and "didn't want to live with the consequences." She told the jury that only the two plaintiffs and Dr. W. John O'Brien believed there had been discrimination and retaliation. She said "just because the plaintiff and the plaintiff's spouse believe it doesn't make it so." She asked the jury to make the plaintiffs "take responsibility for their own choices." She told the jury, "you must return a verdict in favor of the University of Kansas." Johnson then completed his closing argument by telling the jury that KU's entire defense had been to say "what a bad person Dr. Pierotti is and what a bad person Dr. Annett is." He asked them "isn't that just blaming the victims? Isn't that consistent with trying to cover up their actions?" Johnson reminded the jury of four key pieces of evidence:
The jury deliberated for approximately 6 hours before returning the verdict. One final, sad caution: retaliation by KU administrators is one of the possible reactions to this verdict. Federal civil rights law protects everyone who participated in this trial on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is important that any and all adverse employment actions be reported immediately. Wednesday, March 1, 2000 Department Chair Dr. Thomas N. Taylor took the stand today. KU Counsel Barbara McCloud gave him the silk glove treatment during her direct examination. She led him through questions about how highly qualified he is and how great a department chair he is. She led him through questions about how he had improved the department's shared governance by increasing the number of committees so people would have a voice in how things are run. She seemed to have forgotten that just a few days ago, one of her own witnesses, Dr. Helen Alexander, testified under cross examination that Taylor was a more autocratic leader than the previous chair and that even though he created all these committees, governance is more likely to come from Taylor than the committees. During this direct examination, Taylor remained calm and composed. But during cross examination by plaintiffs' attorney Alan Johnson, he became contentious and argumentative. He admitted that no minority students had enrolled in the department since the March 1997 letter in which Dr. Ray Pierotti predicted that planned changes to the graduate program in the department would result in a negative impact on minority graduate students. When asked if he had any minority graduate students, he responded "define minority students for me." After Johnson defined minority students for him, he admitted he had none. When asked if he had shown to the promotion and tenure committee the evidence Dr. Cynthia Annett had delivered disproving his allegations of academic misconduct, Taylor admitted that he "probably had not." He continued to assert that Dr. Annett had deliberately and intentionally misled him. Even when presented with the letters from editors that explained that the works were, indeed, accepted for publication, he continued to assert that the category of the Blue Form on which she had listed the works was for "in press" works, when it is for those works that are either "in press" or "accepted for publication." Several times, he exclaimed, "There were no manuscripts! There were no manuscripts!" When asked about the note of explanation from Dr. Annett, which has never been produced, he said "I've never seen a note." His administrative assistant, Berry Clemens, testified last week that she had seen the note as recently as last summer, in the files prepared for production. When asked about the letter that had been included in the files from a student of Dr. Daphne Fautin, accusing Dr. Annett of favoring minority students, Taylor admitted that he had unilaterally investigated her grade distribution. When describing the results of the investigation in his letter recommending Dr. Annett not be awarded tenure, he described how her grading exhibited a high percentage of A's. Even though he admitted that he had not been able to determine the ethnicity of any of the students he had spun the investigation negatively anyway. Johnson then asked him if he had ever investigated any other professor's grading patterns. He admitted that he had only done so one other time, for Dr. Tom Peterson, whose wife is Hispanic, because he had heard that Dr. Peterson also favored minority students. Johnson questioned Taylor about the removal of the equipment and belongings of Dr. Pierotti and his students. Johnson pointed out that the removal occurred within a week of a complaint to the Provost that Dr. Pierotti had sent. Johnson presented letters and messages between Taylor and Pierotti, in which Taylor pressured Pierotti to move out of the lab space and also mentioned "disturbing" statements attributed to Dr. Pierotti. In one message, Pierotti explained that he would be out of town the following weekend and would empty the lab when he returned. While Pierotti was out of town, Taylor emptied the lab and locked up the contents. When questioned about another reference Taylor made about the charges of academic misconduct against Dr. Annett, he admitted that he had prepared to file new charges of academic misconduct against Annett the year after he first filed charges, when she self-nominated for tenure. KU counsel Rose Marino then called Associate Provost Rich Givens to testify that he had conducted with Maurice Bryan, director of the Office of Equal Opportunity, first an investigation into Dr. Pierotti's complaints about the graduate program, then about Pierotti's complaints of discrimination and retaliation. Marino led Givens to testify that they had, in both instances, found the charges groundless. On cross examination, however, Givens admitted to statements of his and Bryan's in memos to the Provost in which he referred to Dr. Taylor's actions regarding the emptying of the lab space as a "serious breach of courtesy" and stating that Pierotti's complaints may actually have been just the "tip of the iceberg," in reference to greater problems in the department. Marino had led Givens to testify that the space allocated to Dr. Pierotti was actually greater than the space recommended by Board of Regents guidelines. On cross examination, however, he admitted that Taylor had removed Dr. Pierotti from a lab of "about 600 square feet," to two smaller rooms of less than 250 square feet. Givens then also admitted that he had not bothered to compare the amount of space allocated to Dr. Pierotti with the amounts of space allocated to other faculty. One of the most entertaining moments in the entire trial came while Associate Provost Sandra Gautt testified. Once again, KU counsel Rose Marino called a witness she expected would help her case, only to have it backfire. Marino led Gautt through a long description of the Keeler Family Intra-University Fellowship Program. One of Dr. Pierotti's charges of retaliation against the University and Taylor concerns whether Taylor retaliated against Pierotti by negatively influencing his application for the program by writing a harsh and negative letter about Pierotti. Gautt assured the court that Taylor had no part in the decision, nor that his letter had influenced the decision. Marino asked her how many other faculty had applied for the program and she said that eight had applied. Marino asked her how many faculty were accepted for the program and she said that two had. She then bragged that one of them was even an Asian-American female. During her direct examination, in what seemed a slip of the tongue, Gautt mentioned that Dr. Pierotti's application was endorsed by the College after review. No letter of endorsement has ever been produced by KU. On cross examination, Johnson asked her about it and she confirmed that the College had indeed endorsed Pierotti for the program. Johnson asked if the two faculty who had been accepted for the program had received letters of support from their chairs. Gautt had slipped and didn't know how to answer. She thought about it a long time before admitting that they had. She then had to admit that the two faculty who had received letters of support from their chairs had been accepted and that Pierotti, who had been endorsed by the College but had received a negative letter from Taylor, had been rejected. Closing arguments will be tomorrow (Thursday) morning. The case should go to the jury soon after. Tuesday, Feb. 29, 2000 This long trial is taking it's toll on all of us. We're all very tired and emotionally exhausted. We've sat through two and a half weeks of listening to the plaintiffs' evidence and the defense's negative assertions. Cynthia and Ray have had to hear over and over again how worthless and horrible they are. KU still doesn't seem to understand that they have no case and that they've wasted thousands and thousands of taxpayer dollars and victimized dozens of people in this folly. To give you an idea of how sad and strange this all is, you should know some of what's going on in the background. If you read the article from last Friday's UDK, you know about how some of the administration's minions are attacking Mike Cuenca for attending this trial. What you don't know is that the Provost is also conducting an "investigation" into whether or not Mike has committed some egregious wrong by canceling his classes to attend the trial. What makes this so strange is that we've just sat through a long trial wherein it has been established that first a department chair, then a dean, then the Provost, and then the Chancellor used a false accusation of academic misconduct to help derail Dr. Cynthia Annett's tenure. Mike is now going through tenure review a second time, after the University announced that all faculty who were not recommended for tenure by their departments or schools should be reviewed again. See? Even though their tactic in Dr. Annett's case has been exposed, they seem bent on using the same tactic against Mike. They just don't get it. Today, Dean Sally Frost Mason testified that she did, indeed write a letter to the Provost in which she stated that Dr. Annett should be issued a letter of censure for academic misconduct that she hoped would become "part of her permanent record here at KU and will be included in any further discussion of her promotion and tenure." This is the same trumped-up allegation for which several witnesses have testified that they had refuting evidence. Dean Frost Mason had that evidence. Her associate dean had that evidence. The department chair had that evidence. The chair of the department's promotion and tenure committee had that evidence. But the Dean pushed for academic misconduct charges anyway. She admitted today that she wrote that letter on March 16, 1998, after she was informed of the University Committee's decision to overturn the lower committee's recommendations denying Dr. Annett's tenure. She wrote the letter to the Provost, knowing that the Provost and then the Chancellor would make the final decision. Today, she tried to say that her motivation was to include the letter in Dr. Annett's file for the future, because she expected Dr. Annett to self-nominate for tenure the next year. But at that time, Dean Frost Mason shouldn't have been expecting Dr. Annett to self-nominate the next year, because for all Dean Frost Mason knew, the Provost and the Chancellor would agree with the University Committee and grant tenure to Dr. Annett. Unless the Provost or the Chancellor had told her so, she had no way of knowing that Dr. Annett would ultimately be denied tenure that year. And their decisions were supposedly not made for two more weeks. When confronted with one of the contradictions between her testimony today and her deposition testimony, Dean Frost Mason testified that she had answered the question in her deposition they way she thought plaintiffs' attorney Alan Johnson wanted her to answer. She did this, she said, because, "I'm a very helpful person." Throughout her direct examination by defendant's attorney Barbara McCloud, Dean Frost Mason continued to attack Dr. Pierotti's character, referring to him as "angry" thirteen times. Then in cross examination, Johnson asked her if anyone had ever said anything negative about Dr. Pierotti's character before he complained about the changes to the graduate program that he felt would negatively impact minority graduate students. First she said yes, then when pressed for specifics, she said "not specifically." She couldn't give an example, but she assured the court that there were many complaints. Then, from a glowing letter she had written the previous year in support of Dr. Pierotti's nomination for a Kemper Teaching Award, she read that over the years she had received "many positive reports from colleagues and students" about Dr. Pierotti. Johnson also questioned Provost Shulenburger about the timing of his and the Chancellor's decisions and the announcement of Dr. Annett's denial of tenure. The letter to Dr. Annett from the Provost informing her of the rejection was dated March 30, 1998. But the letter the Chancellor wrote to the Provost informing him that he was accepting the Provost's recommendation to reject Dr. Annett's tenure was dated April 1, 1998. It would appear that somehow, the Provost knew what the Chancellor would do even before the Chancellor told him. Today, the Provost testified that the letters were misdated. We're near the end. Closing arguments will likely come tomorrow (Wednesday) afternoon. Monday, Feb. 28, 2000 The remainder of Provost Shulenburger's cross examination was postponed until Tuesday morning. That means he, Dean Sally Frost Mason, and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology Department Chair Thomas N. Taylor will likely be the final three witnesses to testify between now and Wednesday noon. You really don't want to miss any of that. Today, Dr. Daphne Fautin testified. She admitted that she was awarded tenure without a formal tenure review by her department. She was promoted from untenured adjunct associate arofessor to professor, with tenure, after a meeting with Dean Sally Frost Mason, while then-department chair Dr. W. John O'Brien was doing research in Alaska. She admitted that this was a direct hire, without the normal employment review process. Fautin also admitted that a letter from a student of hers that was critical of Dr. Cynthia Annett, was written by the student--who was not a student of Dr. Annett's--as a complaint for the student's sister. She admitted that she advised the student to write the letter to include in Dr. Annett's tenure dossier and that she herself made the decision to include the letter in Dr. Annett's dossier. Plaintiffs' attorney Alan Johnson produced one of the letters from Dr. Annett's editors, which could have helped clear up the confusion regarding Dr. Annett's Blue Form entries. The letter was addressed to Dr. Fautin. He asked her when she had received the letter and she testified that it had been date-stamped and placed in Dr. Annett's dossier on Oct. 22--the same day that Dr. Annett's department voted against her tenure. Johnson clarified that he was asking her when she actually received the letter and she again repeated that same answer. Johnson then produced another version of the document--which had already been entered as evidence in the case--and showed that the document that had been placed in the dossier had been faxed to Dr. Fautin on Oct. 9. The copy of the document that had been put into the dossier had a fax header on it that had been whited out. She admitted then that she did receive the letter on Oct. 9, but couldn't explain why she had held the letter until the day of the tenure vote. When Johnson asked her if she had placed the letter in the dossier before or after the tenure vote, she said "I don't recall." During just over one hour of cross examination, she replied "I don't recall," fifty-three times. Dr. Robert F. Weaver, Associate Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences testified that Dean Sally Frost Mason instructed him to investigate the charges of academic misconduct against Dr. Annett. He testified that he met with Dr. Annett and then with Dr. Taylor, both in early November. He testified that he then advised Dean Frost Mason to proceed with the charges of academic misconduct. He also admitted that he had not bothered to look at the Blue Form, to check that the category in which Dr. Annett listed the contested works was actually the correct category. He admitted that the meetings with Dr. Annett and Dr. Taylor were after Dr. Annett had supplied her letter of clarification and the letters of clarification from her editors. Sunday, Feb. 27, 2000 Friday's revelations about the intensity of emotions in this battle just underscore how these next few days are going to be supercharged with emotion and intensity. No trivial issue could have produced the passionate negative emotion of the front page of Friday's University Daily Kansan. This underscores the importance and necessity of our struggle. And it shows that we're succeeding in our goal of bringing these issues to the center stage of the University's collective consciousness. For that, I'm particularly grateful to the UDK. Don't accept anyone's assertion that me or Dr. Annett, Dr. Pierotti, Dr. Aquilino, Dr. Dendrinos, or any of the other people who are standing with us, are attacking the University of Kansas. Remember, we are the University of Kansas, along with all of our colleagues on the faculty and staff of the University, along with all of the students of the University. We're fighting to make this a better place for all people--even for those who are currently fighting to discredit us because of their disagreement with our message. When we succeed in forcing the State of Kansas to accept that this workplace has some serious human resources problems, those problems can be addressed and resolved. Most of the problems we've encountered revolve around failures of the systems in place to supposedly guarantee equal rights, due process, uniformity of standards, and freedom of expression. When those specific problems are resolved, the resolutions will benefit every single employee and student of this University. If you think that any of us are doing this because we want to be doing this, you are seriously mistaken. No one would willingly live through what we're now living through. But you won't see any of us lie down and quit. NOW GET READY FOR THE CLIMACTIC FINAL DAYS OF THIS TRIAL! The key players in this drama will be appearing on the witness stand between now and the end of the trial, which may come Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Provost David E. Shulenburger will be on the stand again Monday, for the remainder of his cross examination by plaintiffs' attorney. Dean Sally Frost Mason may appear Monday. Dr. Tom Taylor will appear at some point. The story will come out. Friday, Provost Shulenburger testified that annual evaluations are not at all linked to tenure review. Plaintiffs' attorney Alan Johnson asked him repeatedly to explain and to clarify that reality. That is really scary. What it means is that the way things are set up now, you could sail along through your probationary period, believing in good faith that your colleagues think you're doing just what you should. Then when tenure review comes along, they can say "Ha! We were only kidding! You're fired!" Shulenburger testified that he's been either a member of the University Committee on Promotion and Tenure or the Chair of the UCPT for about ten years. He said he estimates that as Chair of the UCPT, he presided over the tenure decisions of perhaps 500 candidates. He testified that it is not uncommon for the UCPT to disagree with and overturn the tenure decisions of the lower committees. He testified that no Chancellor during that time has ever disagreed with the recommendation of the Provost. And he testified that among all of those reviews, he's only overturned the UCPT to reject a candidate's tenure one time. Only once in what he estimated to be at least 500 cases. That case was the tenure review of Dr. Cynthia Annett. You can be sure that his reason or reasons for that decision will be an issue tomorrow in court. Thursday, Feb. 25, 2000 Big news today that will give you an idea of how this trial is going. Plaintiffs' attorney Alan Johnson wrapped up the plaintiffs' case. His final witness was Dr. Ray Pierotti. On cross-examination, KU counsel Rose Marino called into question Dr. Pierotti's Native American heritage, accusing him of only assuming such a heritage in order to get jobs and file discrimination complaints. She insinuated that since he is of "75% European heritage" that he's only pretending to be Native American. Dr. Pierotti replied that he was insulted by her insinuation and that "I know who I am." We're not unfamiliar with this defense from KU. As you may recall, Ms. Marino also questioned Mike Cuenca's heritage in his depositions, insinuating that he's not dark-skinned enough to be a minority. This is an insult to every minority person and indicates KU's complete and total lack of understanding of minority issues. As many of us have found, the KU administration seems to believe that dark skin is the qualification for protection of one's equal opportunity and protection from discrimination and retaliation. After Johnson completed his presentation of the plaintiffs' case, KU counsel Barbara McCloud immediately moved for a directed verdict/judgment as a matter of law. She argued that plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence that they had suffered discrimination and/or retaliation. Judge Murguia denied the motion. Johnson moved for reconsideration of the judge's previous summary dismissal motion, in which he dismissed two of Dr. Pierotti's charges of retaliation. The judge granted that motion and reinstated the two charges, stating that sufficient evidence had been entered during the trial to support those charges. KU is once again facing five charges of discrimination and retaliation in this trial. Provost David E. Shulenburger is tentatively scheduled to testify tomorrow (Friday) afternoon. Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2000 Today's revelation is bi-polar. On the one side, a clique of people whimsically conspiring to deny employment to someone, simply because she is who she is. On the other side, a positive, courageous white male role model able to take the stand and say he had publicly supported Cynthia Annett. Dr. W. John O'Brien, a full professor in the department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, who had also been chair of the department when Dr. Annett was hired and until the year she went up for tenure, testified that he personally contacted the Provost to speak for Dr. Annett after her department and the College rejected her for tenure. He wrote a letter of support to the University Committee, complaining about the conduct of the review and the evaluations of Dr. Annett's work. Later that year, in his annual evaluation, he was reprimanded by Dr. Taylor, specifically for that action. In the three years since his support of Dr. Annett, he has received the lowest percentage of merit raises in the entire department. He testified that two of the three highest percentage increases had gone to Dr. Tom Taylor and his wife, Dr. Edith Taylor. In cross examination, KU Counsel Barb McCloud tried to make him say that he knew he had been wrong to even send a letter at all to the University Committee and stick his nose where it didn't belong. Now you see why we've been crying "retaliation" for so long now. That's a textbook, flagrant case of retaliation. Today we learned more about the connection between Dr. Thomas N. Taylor and Dean Sally Frost Mason. They are good friends and apparently have been since even before he came here to KU. In a letter attributed to Drs. Tom and Edith Taylor that appeared in the KU Division of Biological Sciences Alumni Association newsletter, the following appears: "We are especially indebted to Chris Haufler, Sally Frost Mason, Phil Humphrey, and Kris Krishtalka for creating the opportunity for us to come to KU . . ." Today, Dr. Robert Cohen testified that he is a golfing buddy of both Dr. Taylor and Dean Frost Mason's husband. He testified that he had most recently seen them socially when he attended Dean Frost Mason's husband's birthday party, which was hosted by the Taylors, at their home. He testified that they had also recently gathered for Dr. Taylor's birthday party. Dr. Cohen testified that he was on the College Committee the year Dr. Annett and Dr. Pierotti were reviewed for tenure. He confirmed that he had met with Dr. Taylor the morning after the department vote on Dr. Annett's tenure, but he couldn't remember what they talked about. He was then selected to be the presenter of Dr. Annett's tenure file, which he characterized as inferior and possibly tainted by academic misconduct. He testified that he questioned the amount of participation of only Dr. Annett on the papers that were listed as coauthored by the two on each of their Blue Forms. In other words, he questioned the woman researcher's participation, but he accepted without question the male researcher's participation, when they had both listed their participation as 50%. If that sounds like sexism, that's because it is sexism. Also today, Berry Clemens, the administrative assistant of the department testified that Dr. Pierotti practically assaulted her in the offices of the department one day and that she was afraid he'd attack her because he was so angry that his face was red and that he was "hostile". (Now, remember, Dr. Pierotti is Native American.) She said he was "in the habit of carrying a knife, " but that she was determined to stand up to him that day. She didn't seem to understand that she was applying very negative, very common stereotypes to him. She admitted that other faculty had yelled at her in the past, but she assured the jury that Dr. Pierotti had spoken to her in a way that no other faculty member--or anyone else--ever had. Dr. Raymond Pierotti finally took the stand late in the day. KU objected to the admission of an email message described by Dr. Pierotti as "anonymous hate mail" that plaintiffs' attorney Alan Johnson moved to admit. Johnson argued that it would establish that the workplace was hostile to Native Americans. The evidence was not admitted. Plaintiff's attorney Johnson is to rest with Dr. Pierotti's testimony. KU will begin its defense, limited by the judge to the next three days. We'll see Dean Sally Frost Mason, Dr. Tom Taylor, and Provost David Shulenburger on the stand sometime in these next three days. Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2000 Back in the trial after the weekend. Good stuff today. First, it turns out the University has decided that all faculty who have so far this year been rejected for tenure should actually sort of apply again to their schools and departments. Maybe our message is finally getting through. And maybe it's because the administration has been seeing at the ongoing discrimination and retaliation trial many of the people who have been denied tenure this year. Stay tuned. Okay, back to trial news. The Big Juicy: One weekend a few years ago, Dr. Pierotti left town to attend a conference. His students were working in his laboratory space, as usual. In the middle of the night, while Dr. Pierotti was gone, his department chair, Thomas N. Taylor, slinked into the lab, packed it up completely, and moved it into storage. By morning, when the students returned to work in the lab, the locks had already been changed. Their personal belongings had been removed. One of the students, a McNair scholar, was using the lab space to tutor other students. All of these students' books, papers, computers--everything in the room--had been moved out in the middle of the night. Now, you gotta admit, that's pretty nutty. Dr. Taylor's administrative assistant, Berry Clemens, testified that she had received from Dr. Annett a letter addressing the questions that had been raised about the status of some of the publications listed on her Blue Form. She testified that she received this letter prior to the department vote. This letter explained the misunderstanding, which should have resulted in the end of that issue. Dr. Taylor apparently ignored the letter and filed the false accusations of academic misconduct that then followed Dr. Annett's tenure dossier through each level of tenure review. Clemens testified that the letter was handwritten on a half-sheet of paper. She said it was attached to a stack of reprints and manuscripts given to her by either Dr. Annett or Dr. Pierotti. All of the papers she described have been produced, complete with the date stamp proving when they were submitted. However, the letter of explanation has never been produced by the University. Clemens testified that she has never been asked to search for the letter, even after plaintiffs' counsel specifically requested its production in a letter to the Office of General Counsel. She testified that she last saw it "last summer" in the production documents. Things are getting curiouser, eh? (Remember: Dr. Bob Holt testified that Dean Sally Frost Mason had told him that the order to recuse himself from Dr. Annett's tenure review had come from the Office of General Counsel. And Maurice Bryan, director of the Office of Equal Opportunity, testified in my case that the Office of General Counsel handles discrimination complaints completely, once outside complaints have been filed?) Bryan testified that he's both the director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and a doctoral student. He testified that he's on a year-to-year appointment and receives no formal annual review. He testified in my case that neither he nor his office advocates for the complaining party. In other words, we have no protection from discrimination in this workplace and we have no recourse for in-house resolution. Sunday, Feb. 20, 2000 The first week of the discrimination and retaliation trial of Drs. Annett and Pierotti ended Friday with University of Kansas Chancellor Robert Hemenway taking the stand to defend his decision to deny tenure to Dr. Annett. During the four days of testimony and evidence preceding Hemenway's appearance in the courtroom, it was established that Dr. Annett's tenure review had been tainted by the false allegations of academic misconduct and by Department Chair Tom Taylor's efforts to denigrate her research record. Documentary evidence and testimony connected Taylor, CLAS Dean Sally Frost Mason, and Provost David Shulenburger to the effort to derail Dr. Annett's Tenure. This is particularly troubling considering Provost Shulenburger's deposition testimony in Mike Cuenca's case that the only protection against discrimination in the tenure review process is the integrity of the people involved. When the people at the very top of the administration are apparently of questionable integrity, that means there is no protection from discrimination in the tenure review process. One of the more interesting and revealing pieces of evidence was an admission by Dr. Robert Holt, who was on the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences tenure review committee and who is a member of the same department as Taylor, Annett, and Pierotti. Holt testified that during the day-long meeting of the College Committee, he was ordered by Frost Mason to recuse himself from both the discussion and vote on Dr. Annett. Documents showed that although members of the departments of other tenure candidates were also on that committee, only he and Dr. Taylor recused themselves from the discussion and vote on their colleagues. Holt testified that Frost Mason told him that the order had come from the office of the General Counsel. It was also established that even with the false allegations and the maneuvering of Taylor, Frost Mason, and Shulenburger, the required super majority of the University's Promotion & Tenure Committee voted to overturn all of the lower committee decisions by recommending Dr. Annett for tenure. The committee rejected the assertion that Dr. Annett's research record was inferior and several members of the committee testified that they felt at the time that Dr. Annett's record was being undervalued. Several witnesses testified that they were unaware of the charges of academic misconduct while reviewing Dr. Annett's tenure dossier. However, while testifying, Mary Hawkins of the Libraries finally admitted that there was indeed discussion of the specifics of the allegations. After the University Committee recommended Dr. Annett for tenure, Provost Shulenburger personally set aside that vote and recommended that the Chancellor deny Dr. Annett's tenure. Because Hemenway had not attended any of the trial to that point, he did not know that KU's assertion that Dr. Annett's research record was inferior had already been refuted throughout four days of evidence and testimony comparing her record to others in the department, including males who had gone up for tenure the years before and after her. He apparently did not know that six of the seven letters from external reviewers recommended tenure for Dr. Annett. So it was particularly embarrassing when he parroted the same old line--as had many of the University's loyal witnesses. It made it sound as if he hadn't even read the dossier, even though he testified that he reads each of the complete tenure dossiers, which he first said was 30 or 40, then 50 or 60. He testified that he did not merely rubber stamp Provost David Shulenburger's decision to deny Dr. Annett tenure, but that he made an independent decision. What that means is that he was either a part of the conspiracy to derail Dr. Annett's tenure review, or that he wasn't paying any attention. Neither option is particularly comforting. What we've been shown by plaintiff's attorney Alan Johnson, is that at the University of Kansas, fairness and objectivity are not guaranteed in tenure review. You can link to the articles in the Lawrence Journal-World and the Kansas City Star in our News section. Tuesday, Feb. 15, 2000 KU's ill-advised defense may well prove the case. In her opening argument on Monday, KU counsel Barbara McCloud asserted that this case was brought on by two people who were essentially "whiners", upset because they didn't get their way. She accused co-plaintiff Ray Pierotti of being a habitual complainer who is not collegial and is confrontational. Wednesday, she produced evidence hoping to prove the accusation, leading Professor Edward Wiley to testify that he and his colleagues had the right to feel that way about Ray because Ray had called them "racists". Under cross-examination, Wiley admitted that Pierotti had never actually called them "racists". He admitted that Pierotti had simply complained about the fact that there had never been any minority students nominated from their department for a particular fellowship. He admitted that Pierotti had never become confrontational. On redirect, McCloud asked him if the evidence she had presented proved that Pierotti had a non-collegial and confrontational manner. He answered, "no". This tactic is part of what psychologist William Ryan calls "blaming the victim". It is the tendency "to attribute [a social problem] to the characteristics of the people who are its victims." (The Functions of Prejudice, Jack Levin, Harper & Row, 1975.) In other words, KU's only defense is an irrational attack on the character of the plaintiffs. They're using negative stereotypes to defend against charges of racism. Could it be much more obvious that these people don't understand any of this at all? It's obvious they aren't the least bit aware of their own obvious prejudice. THE SECOND CASE SURVIVES SUMMARY JUDGMENT! Marie Aquilino's Title VII discrimination case proceeds on charges of retaliation. Trail is scheduled for April 1. Mike Cuenca's attorney deposed the University Provost, the former dean of the Journalism School, the current dean of the Journalism School the University's Director of Equal Opportunity, the School of Journalism's Assistant Dean and News Sequence Head. KU produced documents that cast doubt on the integrity of Cuenca's tenure review. In his third deposition in a federal discrimination lawsuit in less than a year, Provost David Shulenburger testified under oath that the University of Kansas does not adhere to the AAUP guidelines. He testified that the only protection from discrimination in the tenure review that a tenure candidate at the University of Kansas has is the integrity of the other people involved. KU's Director of Equal Opportunity, Maurice Bryan, testified under oath that he thinks the reason that KU is less ethnically diverse than it should be is because there are people here who have a hard time hiring people who are a lot different than they are. He also said he believes that doesn't constitute discrimination. Bryan testified that he works for the University and that there is no advocacy for the complaining party. When handling discrimination complaints, his office requests assistance from the University's Office of the General Counsel. As soon as a complaining party files a complaint outside the University, the Office of the General Counsel takes over completely. |
This site is proudly hosted by www.seekpeace.com.