Cambridge – The WSWS Editorial Board has opined on the case of Czerwienski v. Harvard.
Category: Harvard case
-
Free Beacon reports on Harvard’s motions
Cambridge – The Washington Free Beacon weighs in on the latest developments in the case of Czerwienski v. Harvard.
-
Free Beacon reports on petition
Reporter Aaron Sibarium covers higher education issues for The Washington Free Beacon. He reports on the petition being promoted by the Harvard Graduate Students Union to pressure the University.
-
Comaroff Attorneys Object to Union Petition
Cambridge – John Comaroff’s attorneys object to a Harvard Graduate Student Union petition now circulating that demands sanctions and shunning, and threatens tenure revocation, on the basis of mere allegations. Attorney Ruth O’Meara-Costello expresses shock that HLS law students and a HLS law professor have joined in the witch-hunt tactics.
See letter here:
Statement from Ruth O’Meara-Costello protesting union petition
-
Harvard Files Response to Amended Complaint
Cambridge – On July 19, 2022, Harvard University filed an amended motion to dismiss Counts 1 through 9 of the complaint in Czerwienski v. Harvard University, with supporting documents, including an amended Memorandum of Law stating its legal arguments in support of the motion. It also submitted an amended motion for partial summary judgment on Count 10 of the complaint, supported by a new Statement of Material Facts, a new Memorandum of Law, and Exhibits, including several that are now unsealed.
See the documents here:
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Nine of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
Harvard’s Amended Motion for Partial Summary Judgment As to Counts Ten
Harvard’s Amended Statement of Material Facts
Affidavit of Ilissa Povich Dated 7-19-22
Amended Index of Exhibits to Affidavit of Illisa Povich Dated 7-19-22
Povich Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37.
-
Harvard objects to motion to unseal Title IX documents
Cambridge – Harvard lawyers asked a federal court judge on Tuesday not to unseal, with redactions, certain documents related to a Title IX complaint, arguing that to do so would reveal sensitive information about third parties, identify individuals and subject them to possible retaliation, discourage parties and witnesses from cooperating with Harvard’s Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR), and waste court resources. Harvard called the plaintiffs’ proposed redactions “one-sided” and added: “For example, the redactions plaintiffs propose to ODR’s notes of its interview with Kilburn’s therapist include information containing information that is clearly not confidential, but which might undermine Kilburn’s credibility.”
For more information, read the motions here:
-
Harvard Files Motions to Dismiss and for Summary Judgment
Cambridge, MA – Lawyers for Harvard University asked a U.S. District Court judge on May 31, 2022 to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by three graduate students last year. Harvard filed a motion for summary judgment on count 10 of the lawsuit, which claimed that the University had improperly obtained and released one plaintiff’s therapy records, and supported it with numerous affidavits and internal records. Harvard filed a motion to dismiss the remaining counts of the lawsuit, citing failure to state a claim and statute of limitations deficiencies.
Please see the motions and supporting documents below:
- Memorandum of Law in Support of Harvard’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgement As To Count 10
- Defendant’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss Counts One through Nine of Plaintiff’s Complaint
- Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One Through Nine of Plaintiffs’ Complaint
- Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Under Seal
- Joint Motion for Protective Order
- Corporate Disclosure Statement
- Defendant’s Motion For Leave to Exceed Page Limit
-
Lawyers respond to civil suit
Norman Zalkind, Janet Halley, and Ruth O’Meara-Costello issue the following statement, on behalf of
their client, Professor John Comaroff, in response to the lawsuit filed today by plaintiffs Margaret
Czerwienski, Amulya Mandava, and Lilia Kilburn. Professor Comaroff categorically denies ever harassing or retaliating against any student.To address the lawsuit’s specific allegations, Professor Comaroff was never the subject of any Title IX or other complaint at the University of Chicago. There, as at Harvard, he was a sincerely devoted mentor to countless students.
Professor Comaroff denies the claim that he made advances on an unnamed second-year graduate
student. No such student has ever sought an investigation of claims against him. The only students
whose complaints Harvard has notified him of are the plaintiffs.Regarding the 2017 meeting between Ms. Mandava and Professor Comaroff, Ms. Mandava and
Professor Comaroff met at her request in order to speak about a grant proposal she was considering
submitting. The conversation turned to the topic of gossip, which was relevant to Ms. Mandava’s
academic topic, and Professor Comaroff spoke generally about its dangers in professional academic
settings. In doing so, he was repeating advice that he had given to countless students over the years, including while teaching a seminar on professionalization at the University of Chicago. He absolutely denies threatening Ms. Mandava or Ms. Czerwienski, during that meeting or at any other time. Harvard’s thorough Title IX investigation found that not only had he not retaliated against either
student—he was not even aware, during that meeting, of the rumors that the two were spreading about him. The truth is that Professor Comaroff consistently made every effort to assist these students and to advance their careers, both before and after the 2017 meeting.Regarding Ms. Kilburn, Professor Comaroff did not kiss her or touch her inappropriately at any time.
Harvard’s Title IX investigation, which lasted over a year and was extraordinarily thorough, concluded
that the evidence simply did not support claims that he had kissed or touched Ms. Kilburn. Allegations that he forbade her from working with her other advisor are simply false.Professor Comaroff did speak with Ms. Kilburn, who proposed to conduct fieldwork in Cameroon while traveling openly with her same-sex partner, about the risks that could attend that plan, including the risk of sexual violence. This was a necessary conversation for her safety and numerous faculty witnesses in the Title IX process attested that his advice was appropriate. The Title IX investigation found that he was motivated only by concern for Ms. Kilburn’s well-being and had no romantic or sexual intention, but that the advice nonetheless constituted sexual harassment. Professor Comaroff vehemently disputes this conclusion, which would cripple faculty members’ ability to use their best academic judgment in advising students about essential safety issues.
Professor Comaroff is not only a leading scholar in his field—he is a deeply caring person who has
devoted his energy for decades to mentoring and advancing generations of students. Attacks on his
career based on gossip and rumor rather than actual evidence are shameful. -
Comaroff’s lawyers denounce Harvard discipline
Following Dean Claudine Gay’s announcement today of sanctions against Harvard Professor John Comaroff, his attorneys seek to inform the public of the full context of this matter.
Following an exhaustive investigation lasting more than a year, involving allegations by three complainants, Title IX investigators found John Comaroff responsible solely for verbal sexual harassment arising from a brief conversation during an office hour advising session. The advice he gave concerned the student’s physical security in field research. He maintains that it was not only his right, but his moral duty, to so advise her, because her proposed plans were objectively physically dangerous to her. The investigators found that he had no sexual or romantic intention.
The same student accused Professor Comaroff of repeatedly imposing unwanted sexual contact on her. The Title IX investigators found that the evidence did not support those accusations, and found him not responsible for any of the other two complainants’ allegations.
Upon receipt of these results, Harvard opened a second, kangaroo court process – lacking the most elemental aspects of due process and artificially limited to a defective record – to reexamine conduct already thoroughly investigated in the Title IX process. This process resulted in an illegitimate finding that Professor Comaroff was responsible for alleged unprofessional (but entirely non-sexual) conduct in another office hours advising session. Even in the latter proceedings, the factfinder concluded that the alleged harm “may not have been intended.”
Professor Comaroff is represented by Harvard Law School professor Janet Halley and by Norman Zalkind and Ruth O’Meara-Costello of Zalkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP. Halley observed, “Harvard’s setting up a second, biased process because it did not like the results of its own Title IX investigation is a shocking demonstration of its willingness to set aside basic principles of fairness when under political pressure.”
Both office-hours sessions involved brief exchanges in which students regrettably took offense at appropriate advice. Both were well within professional standards and within Professor Comaroff’s right to academic freedom — and fully compliant with his obligations under Harvard’s sexual harassment policy. Halley commented, “What this boils down to: two students took offense at perfectly legitimate office-hours advice. Everyone who advises at Harvard should note this attack on academic freedom.”
Professor Comaroff said, “I categorically deny all the accusations against me and object strongly to the University’s failure to accord me a fair process and to respect my academic judgment.”
Sanctions under these circumstances, much less the severe sanctions announced today, are entirely inappropriate.
Contact: Norman Zalkind
Zalkind, Duncan & Bernstein
Nzalkind@zalkindlaw.com